Open main menu

Steward requests/Permissions/2010-02

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Contents

Administrator access

Manuel_de_Sousa@mwlwiki

This user, well-known on Portuguese Wikipedia — sysop + chair of the General Assembly of the Portuguese chapter (Wikimedia Portugal) , is candidate to be sysop on Mirandese Wikipedia. After six days of nomination, there is no opposition to this nomination, seven users having agreed the candidate. There is still no rule of duration about sysop nominations on this small and growing wiki, and the candidate will be the first sysop on mwl.wikipedia.org, giving help against possible vandalisms and for many other works. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Pathoschild 12:16:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NSA52@ruwikiversity

Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Holding until 11 Feb 2010 for local election. Kylu 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Erwin 10:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Osmanlı98@trwikinews

Thanks.--Reality006 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On hold. Voting started 14 February, we have to give people some more time to comment. - Andre Engels 09:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done Final vote Kylu 00:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Romanov@arwikibooks

  Done Expires 20 August 2010. Ah, you may want to consider starting the next vote now, though. Maybe by then we can see two votes? :) Kylu 00:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

Ventusa@ka.wikipedia

  • Also please have a look here--Gaeser 18:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    I am asking the local bureaucrat with recent activity at English Wikipedia.--Jusjih 03:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
waiting for a clarification on user' talk (local)--Nick1915 - all you want 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
yep. The point at issue is that we haven't a clear policy about this, it has already been told below: there's consensus amongst stewards, of course, and indeed 14 or 15 votes don't make a big difference (we're not so fussy!), considering that ka.wiki has a very active community. Anyway I don't understand why you want to open a "ka-ru" case when ru.wikiversity reached just 3 votes... anyway I'm absolutely available to see other stews' opinions :)--Nick1915 - all you want 20:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
3≠5, 14<15 .. For this reason I ask it to write down - really so difficult? SergeyJ 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
not so difficult for me, indeed this request is   Done (local community is active and there're 8 local sysops and 2 'crats actually), and the request below is closed (3 or 5 votes doesn't make any difference and just 1 sysop, to be more precise: you...) --Nick1915 - all you want 23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SergeyJ@ru.wikiversity

The following discussion is closed.

SergeyJ 03:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As there's only one administrator (yourself) so far, it doesn't appear that there's very much need for a local bureaucrat, don't you think? Normally that right isn't given out until there are a number of local administrators. Kylu 03:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In some Wikiversity (it, cs) there is not that that one - and two bureaucrats. Besides, in our Wikiversity it is simply technical flag. We think that we are ready to give out flags of bot and admin. Besides we are going to fill up staff of admin in the near future. SergeyJ 05:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  Not done. The local community is to small, and we can't give out rights that would (effectivly) appoint you to "dictator" for the local community. Stewards can handle the small amount of requests from ruwikiverisity until you (hopefully) have grown a larger community. Laaknor 14:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You can name criteria when our community can have the local bureaucrat ? SergeyJ 04:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The relevant question may be "How many people need be involved before a long-term and meaningful consensus is reachable on a project?" Traditionally, bureaucrats are not assigned until there are at least five administrators, and typically in the realm of 15-20 votes within a week's timeframe. Part of the problem we're experiencing at the moment stems from the contradiction of having a strict, yet at times undefined, policy for matters such as these. Compounding further is the maxim that Wikimedia policies are descriptive rather than proscriptive, in that they describe how policy works rather than defining that policy. Lastly, one must keep in mind that "Don't Decide" is only half of the steward shield: The other is "We're all volunteers." No wikimedian should ever feel that they're violating policy by simply not doing something they're not comfortable doing. Kylu 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
bureaucrats are not assigned until there are at least five administrators, and typically in the realm of 15-20 votes within a week's timeframe. These norms somewhere are fixed? Or this your private opinion? SergeyJ 07:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It is necessary, in a case if it is new norms that they here have been fixed and that to all further they were applied. Instead of it is selective. SergeyJ 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Closing as not done. If you disagree, please request opinions at RFC rather than continue a discussion here. Thank you. Kylu 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Reopening for further discussion - I'm not sure that we have a policy on not granting bureaucrat access that has been decided in an actual on-wiki vote by active participants. While the community is small, and the fact that it has a limited number of admins, it seems like the election ran its due course. I would have granted this actually, myself. bastique demandez! 00:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Cary, you remember, we had this huge trouble with another project (don't want to name it explicitly, but you remember), one or two years ago... That's the reason why this happens. However, with 5 votes from active users, I would have granted it too, in this case, because it seems as if there aren't many more active contributors there, so it's kind of the full community who are supporting. That's a lot of support actually. --თოგო (D) 00:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is valid in voting the most active participants much of them participated participated in a beta stage. I know, you speak about what problem. But I wish to repeat once again - according to our local rules, which keep spirit has begun Wikiversity - Custodians (we distinguish from admin) and Bureaucrats are especially technical role. We operate by default while the community on a certain question will not solve on another. Therefore cannot be such that the bureaucrat becomes the dictator.

Probably it is necessary to change with Not done-> In Progress and if it is required to continue discussion. SergeyJ 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This is in no way a personal preference, and I am surprised if stewards are not aware of this. Already in 2008 it was consensus amongst the stewards that communities with such a small community that they can not have 15-20 votes at least in 1-2 weeks, are not able to make long term and influential decisions like this. Therefore, bureaucrats are only permitted when the community is larger than that. It is not so much about percentages, but about having reached a certain size that a) bureaucrats are needed and b) the judgement call is valid. I see no reason to change this standing consensus now suddenly, especially with only five votes. --Effeietsanders 08:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I ask to specify me communities corresponding voting or any rules. SergeyJ 10:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware of the consensus that Effeietsanders mentions, but I am aware of the relative incident, and do appreciate the concerns surrounding it. Since I feel as if my opposition to the decision is singular among stewards, I will stand aside and let the consensus prevail to not grant access at this time. bastique demandez! 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: I do agree that this should better be "codified" in the guidelines, but unfortunately this never happened although at the time some remarks in that direction were made. Maybe it would be good to write it at least in the Steward Handbook though, to avoid confusion in the future. @SergeyJ: not everything is or has to be written and voted on. A lot of standing practices have been developed over time, and never been actually voted on. If we would have to vote on everything, we would have a full time job on it. This standing practice has been in use because it falls within the responsibility of the stewards to make an estimation on the decisions made. Not so much to decide themselves, but to decide whether the community is in the position to make a decision. Similarly rules have been developed for a minimum community size for checkusers (which have, because of their sensitive nature, been written down in official written policies) --Effeietsanders 18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with effeietsanders' stand, and (offtopic) we really have to update the guidelines. We should also close this request, any further objections? --Nick1915 - all you want 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If you specify these new agreements evidently here on this page (or Bureaucrat), and further they will be applied obviously (and not just to be meant) - at me objections will not be. SergeyJ 22:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

«not everything is or has to be written and voted on. A lot of standing practices have been developed over time, and never been actually voted on. If we would have to vote on everything, we would have a full time job on it. This standing practice has been in use because it falls within the responsibility of the XXX to make an estimation on the decisions made.»

Whether correctly I understand, what such argument can be used and on other questions, in other wikimedia-projects, and other group of people? SergeyJ 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This fact, that stewards have to make these estimations, goes for any situation where an action is asked from the stewards. Be it granting new rights, be it a group of people asking for removal. Effeietsanders 08:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
But why it is a question only of stewards, the same situations (only on other questions) are both at bureaucrats, and at admin, and at those who writes templates, and at those who writes articles. Till now interrogation of opinions, voting, instead of simple ascertaining of the facts of that was required as the certain group has solved. Or it is a question That is allowed to Jupiter it it is not allowed to a bull (Quod licet Jovi, the priest licet bovi) SergeyJ 10:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Understand me correctly, I only that I want, that these norms which here have been sounded - was are written officially down. At least because these norms it is separated off and on (Depend on a situation), from the person to the person... Also it is impossible to understand when next time it is necessary to make an application. Besides, it is not clear why then those have the status of the bureaucrat who got out earlier and did not satisfy to these norms. SergeyJ 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I result similar situations when the rights of the bureaucrat have been given out:

  • simple.wikibooks: [4] ; [5] - Only 4 voices pro. 2009-10
  • sv.wikiquote: [6] ; [7] - Only 4 voices pro. 2009-08
  • kn.wikipedia: Only 3 voices pro: [8] 2009-07
  • It is necessary to notice that it not what that old elections, and passed more recently SergeyJ 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
SergeyJ previous mistakes (if any) is not reason to repeat them again , per most of other steward on this page i also mark this request as   Not done please feel free to discuss about the subject on the talk page but please don't continue debate here . Thanks for your considerationMardetanha talk 23:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
you not have answered my question!? !? SergeyJ 23:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The answer is: Yes, we made mistakes apparently, but that is no reason to make them again. Effeietsanders 10:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
But why you do not wish to write down criteria officially? SergeyJ 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
We will if it is up to me, but that will just take a while to make sure we word it correctly. This is not the place however to have that discussion in depth. Let us wrap things up here :) Effeietsanders 15:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, tell to me where it will be discussed? (Why that seems to me that about it wish to forget.) SergeyJ 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
SergeyJ, please transfer your discussion to talkpage or make a RFC as Kylu sayed above. This is not a place for discussion. THX --WizardOfOz talk 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You answer the brought attention to the question: "Where it will be discussed and when the shown criteria will be written officially down?" Also it is not necessary to send me, ignoring my questions! SergeyJ 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
For the last time: if you are dissatisfied by the decision of stewards, then go to RFC and make a request. This page is not for discussions. Your request is not done as you can see above. --WizardOfOz talk 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here I will give you a more specific location to start. A discussion has begun at Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum_number_of_votes. I know that Ottava is anticipating starting a more formal RfC or proposal after a bit of discussion. That is the place to bring this discussion unless you want to start an RfC on your own now. I am marking this thread as archived, I would request that people do not actually move it to the archives for a couple days to allow everyone involved to see it. James (T C) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Holder@als.wikipedia

On Alemannic Wikipedia we had e bureaucrat (Melancholie), but unfortunately he is inactive since about five months (the only edit he did in these months was an announcement that he is inactive). So the community decided to make a request for another bureaucrat. As our bureaucrat is inactive the right for me could not be granted by him. Kind regards, --Holder 09:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a decision, just a comment: There's a bit of a discussion (and prior argument) regarding how many votes it'd take to merit bureaucratship. At the moment, it's entirely possible that stewards aren't going to be comfortable promoting with fewer than 15 votes. Is there any chance your project would be willing to extend the vote for, say, another couple weeks? While you're at it, you may want to consider having not only another bureaucrat around, in case the first is busy. If you're interested in the discussion, it's taking place at Talk:Bureaucrat#Minimum number of votes here. Kylu 04:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
The vote has already not been closed, but I don't think that there will be 15 votes after two or three weeks. Unfortunately the active community of Alemannic Wikipedia is not as big as communities of other Wikipedias. --Holder 12:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick comment in support of the request: of the 15 currently most active users, 10 have voted in favor, one is a bot which for some reason is listed as a user in the statistic, one hasn't been active since the vote started, one has only made one edit since, another has stated that he does not want to get involved in such votes, and one is Holder himself. Also, of the 10 admins there, 4 are currently inactive, and the others have all voted in favor. --Chlämens 16:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to contact Melancholie, maybe via e-mail? He has edited just 2 days ago--Nick1915 - all you want 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Melancholie has done it! So this request is no longer needed. Thanks and kind regards, --Holder 04:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser access

user Abisys@itwikipedia

Abisys provided identity proof, please grant the Check-user status to him on it.wiki. Thank you! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 05:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 09:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius@Commons

Please give check user right to this user according to commons:Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Eusebius. --EugeneZelenko 15:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We're waiting for them to identify to the foundation and then we can proceed with this request. --FiliP ██ 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
E-mail sent. --Eusebius 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
E-mail received =>   Done. --FiliP ██ 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Eusebius 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Paul2387@enwiki

(your remarks) Paul2387 15:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not done, can't see that you have been given this permission by the local community. Laaknor 15:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This user has only made 808 edits accourding to stewardry and has not approached the local community. Corruptcopper 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Aturantekin@ugproject

Thank you! Aturantekin 05:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Aturantekin, can you provide a link to local discussion? --WizardOfOz talk 07:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
no discussion, local community is too small, and there're not any other local CU... so,   Not done--Nick1915 - all you want 08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gac@itwikipedia

Gac will provide identity proof as soon as possible, so keep him on hold now. After identity confirmation, please grant the Check-user status to him. Thank you! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 04:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wrote on 14-2-10 to <secure-info@wikimedia.org> for that, thanks --Gac 06:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done buon lavoro!!--Nick1915 - all you want 01:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bsadowski1@simplewiki

Successful request for CU. -Djsasso 02:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  On hold User has not submitted ID to the office as of yet, per the Identification noticeboard. Kylu 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Identification received. Lauryn Ashby (d) 16:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Done, user has been notified and CU mailing list admins informed. --M/ 17:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversight access

Gribeco@frwiki

ArbCom on frwiki finally made their decision, as they are the ones to choose Oversights (as well as CheckUsers), according to this community vote. We settled for 5 OSs, sorry for the massive request... Alphos [bother me] 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Erwin 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Guillom@frwiki

ArbCom on frwiki finally made their decision, as they are the ones to choose Oversights (as well as CheckUsers), according to this community vote. We settled for 5 OSs, sorry for the massive request... Alphos [bother me] 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Erwin 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Kropotkine_113@frwiki

ArbCom on frwiki finally made their decision, as they are the ones to choose Oversights (as well as CheckUsers), according to this community vote. We settled for 5 OSs, sorry for the massive request... Alphos [bother me] 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User still needs to identify to the foundation. Alphos already informed him about that. --Erwin 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done --FiliP ██ 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

David_Berardan@frwiki

ArbCom on frwiki finally made their decision, as they are the ones to choose Oversights (as well as CheckUsers), according to this community vote. We settled for 5 OSs, sorry for the massive request... Alphos [bother me] 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User still needs to identify to the foundation. Alphos already informed him about that. --Erwin 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Done, OS status granted. LeinaD (t) 22:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludo29@frwiki

ArbCom on frwiki finally made their decision, as they are the ones to choose Oversights (as well as CheckUsers), according to this community vote. We settled for 5 OSs, sorry for the massive request... Alphos [bother me] 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

User still needs to identify to the foundation. Alphos already informed him about that. --Erwin 09:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Done, OS status granted. LeinaD (t) 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of access

Neuceu@frwiki

  Done --FiliP ██ 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Denis Dordoigne@frwiki

  Done --FiliP ██ 14:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Fritzpoll@enwiki

I'm requesting a confirmation and allowing a couple of hours. In any case, thank you for your work. --M/ 23:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Can a Steward possibly just ban his access to meta and deny the request instead? But seriously - This is his retirement notice. Ottava Rima 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done I'm sorry for your retirement, best wishes for your real life! Thank you!--Nick1915 - all you want 23:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Andrei G Kustov@ruwiki

Please remove sysop access per this Arbcom decision due to inactivity. Regards, --Blacklake 09:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Taxman@enwiki

Done. --Erwin 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sam Korn@enwiki

Done. --Erwin 09:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Softssa@svwikiquote

Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mizusumashi@jawikipedia

Done. Thank you for your work as a sysop. --M/ 23:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Joylife@ttwikipedia

Voting has finished.--Рашат Якупов 10:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done --FiliP ██ 10:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!--Рашат Якупов 12:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Popo_le_Chien@frwiki

Remove admin rights only (I remain a happy bureaucrat). Thanks, Popo le Chien 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not how it goes. Bureaucrat status is tied to the sysop status, so we can't remove sysop rights without removing bureaucrat rights as well (I'm not speaking in terms of technical realization, but rather in terms of policy). --FiliP ██ 22:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a link about that one? We recently had a non-admin candidate on :fr - she didn't make it but general understanding was that there was no local policy nor technical restriction against that. Popo le Chien 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no policy (that I know of), but there is no practice of that as well. I don't think we've ever done that and I don't think we will. Also, to me it makes no sense, really. Sorry. --FiliP ██ 22:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Renaming a user, for instance, involves actions that are in the admin groups. Sorry... I really do not see how you and your community could benefit from this flag alone. --M/ 22:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Absence of precedence doesn't forbid anything. Though I don't see much the point of arguing against a policy that you acknowledge doesn't exist -lest I ask for full removal of rights and get re-bureaucrated at home - here we go with the full explanation:
There aren't this many bureaucrats (4 active) on :fr, electing new ones turned to be a pain, and I do a good, happy job there. Thus, I'm trying my own little experiment of seeing if I can stay focused on researching articles without the temptation of doing some random admin stuff as a form of procrastination. Thanks, Popo le Chien 22:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I understand that. But please also try to think why community did not grant "sole" bureaucrat privileges. I can't know in advance if fr.wiki community might gladly accept this kind of unprecedented action from stewards. In my humble opinion it would be far better if you get voted again or have another bureaucrat assign you the flag. --M/ 22:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the general idea behind this is that bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight rights are built on top of sysop rights. For performing actions tied to these user roles, admin rights are frequently required. E.g. for bureaucrat actions, when you rename a user, you sometimes need to delete a redirect from the old userpage to the new one.
Also, as bureaucrat you can just give yourself sysop status – so in general there aren't really any benefits in not giving sysop status to bureaucrats (I know that it's a voluntarily request in this case, but the principal remains the same: removing sysop status doesn't have any advantages, does it?). --Church of emacs talk 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Errr, we do (and did) have non-admin checkusers on :fr (and the rare deletion of a redirect can be asked from someone else). As explained above, I understand that this is highly unusual and that the advantages are purely for my own purpose. But then the system is meant to accomodate contributors, not the other way around. Popo le Chien 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I must say, that there isn't any reason why a user shouldn't be able to have only 'crat-rights (it only doesn't make sense technically), as they are diffrent rights. Unless the wiki has a policy against only holding 'crat-rights, this request should be carried out. Laaknor 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  Sure, why not... Admin removed, bureaucrat left. No reason to keep arguing about it, and if he determines later that it causes a hinderance to his duties, a local bureaucrat (heh) could just re-add the flag per local conventions. Kylu 04:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
My thought, exactly. Thanks a lot guys. Popo le Chien 08:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Volkan@trwiktionary

Vote was just started on February 3. User has indeed been inactive for 5 years.--Jusjih 03:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done--Shizhao 02:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Funda@trwiktionary

  • Note - Vote was just started today. User has indeed been inactive for 5 years. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done Laaknor 22:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yakiv Gluck@ukwikipedia

Thank you. --Tomahiv 12:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 21:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


dragunova@idwikipedia

  Done. Thanks for your work. --FiliP ██ 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugur_Basak@tr.wiktionary

  Done thank you!--Nick1915 - all you want 08:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Nick --Ugur Basak 15:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mason@sv.wikipedia

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Dbl2010@trwiktionary

Moreover he had applied meta.wikimedia in June 2007 and he wanted to resign from bureaucrat and admin status.--Sabri76 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Will the vote continue for the week?--Shanel 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure. We have not got enough active users, but I'm sure that every user are agreed to discussion. If this discussion enough for you, you'll do this...--Sabri76 15:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. If there is no objection after a week Dbl12010 will have his rights removed. --Shanel 15:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Voting ends on January 14.--Shanel 15:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting ends on January 14? what does it mean? Voting has started on February 3.--Sabri76 15:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
wikt:tr:Vikisözlük:Köy çeşmesi#İnaktif bürokratın durumu appears to say otherwise, is that incorrect? Kylu 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
(to Kylu) No it isn't. "İnaktif bürokratın durumu" means "status of inactive bureaucrat". "İnaktif hizmetlilerin durumu" means "status of inactive admins". Dbl2010 is admin and also bureaucrat. I will requested for resign his bureaucrat status, but I'm waiting for ::this voting. By the way, I'm sure he haven't been active in Wiktionary. Because, in June 2007 and he wanted to resign from bureaucrat and admin status and he e-mailed to me he doesn't think to using any Wikimedia project.--Sabri76 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
He wasn't added to the inactive admin discussion until the 7th also[12]. Please confirm? He's been gone for so long, I don't think waiting the full time is going to hurt anything. Kylu 22:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right. We have to finish the discussion on 13 February.--Sabri76 20:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistyped. That should say February 14th above, not January.--Shanel 13:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion has finished...--Sabri76 22:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done Kylu 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Moyg@frwikipedia

On hold, I've asked for a confirmation on the user's talk page. --M/ 14:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed, done. --M/ 14:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Inisheer@frwiktionary

Inisheer is not active since 2008. She has said to me (see link) that she don't need the sysop rights anymore. Thank you by advance -- Quentinv57 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. Please thank Inisheer for their service as an administrator. Kylu 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nakor@frwikipedia

  Done :-( guillom 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Adailton@ptwiki

  Done Kylu 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Reality006@trwikinews

Is this a request to have your sysop status removed? The place and the fact that you have status would make me think so, but "I would like to receive authorization." sounds more like you want to have it added? - Andre Engels 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please remove my sysop rights--Reality006 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done and thanks for serving the trwikinews community. Laaknor 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reality006@trwiktionary

Is this a request to have your sysop status removed? The place and the fact that you have status would make me think so, but "I would like to receive authorization." sounds more like you want to have it added? - Andre Engels 10:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please remove my sysop rights--Reality006 15:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done and thanks for serving the trwikinews community. Laaknor 15:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Kubrick@dewiki

Inactive@commonswiki

Thank you. – Kwj2772 (msg) 02:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 11:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Alchemica@frwiki

  Sysop+Crat removed since your account is sul there is no need for local confirmation , thanks for all your services to the project --Mardetanha talk 10:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Alan012@cywiki

  Done Admin removed. Kylu 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bassem JARKAS@arwiki

According to the above policy Bassem JARKAS has been in active for more than six months. I notified him on his disscusion page and over email two weeks ago as the policy says. thanks in advance. --Ciphers 03:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

  Done--Nick1915 - all you want 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dbl2010@trwikiquote

  • Thanks...--Sabri76 00:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done Bureaucrat and admin removed. Kylu 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KuyumcuS@trwikiquote

  • Thanks...--Sabri76 00:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  Done Admin removed Kylu 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz@enwikipedia

Asked for a confirmation. --M/ 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed at en talk page. Since this was a SUL account I hadn't realised that step was still necessary. Spartaz 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. --M/ 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Many Thanks Spartaz 18:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mathae@huwiki

  Done and thank you for your work for the hu.wikipedia-community. Laaknor 22:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Okapi@cywiki

  Done Laaknor 22:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)

Prodego@plwiki

I assigned Prodego temporary administrator access on plwiki to fix broken abuse filters, which were causing large edits to fail. Done and removed. —Pathoschild 03:04:50, 07 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Ciphers@arwiki for import

Hi, i would like to request the importer rights on arabic wikipedia for my account for trial. I may change these rights to my bot account later in case the trial worked as expected. link to the local request is here, sorry it is in Arabic. thanks! --Ciphers 11:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  On hold as you just added this on 2009-11-05.--Jusjih 02:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. --Ciphers 03:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  Done to expire on 2010-02-13 as I see only one other user commenting on your request.--Jusjih 01:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
removed--Nick1915 - all you want 09:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Aturantekin@ugwiki

Thank you!--Aturantekin 13:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Aturantekin, please provide a link to the local community approval or link to the announcement on local village pump. LeinaD (t) 14:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  Not done as there was no response for some days... --FiliP ██ 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki@aywikipedia

  • Sockpuppeteers are not normally granted sysop, I wouldn't think. Additionally, the link you provide is not a discussion of the community wishing to grant you sysop, but you requesting it with no comments. I'm sure the stewards will treat it appropriately. 68.91.17.18 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  On hold until 19 February 2010 for discussion both here and on ay.wikipedia. Expected subject matter would be the multiple local blocks and sockpuppetry allegations. Kylu 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Copypaste from ay.wiki : --MisterWiki 15:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to help here with maintenance and blocks. I'm learning Aymara too and I want to help this project. I speak English, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese and French. --MisterWiki 16:23 12 ana 2010 (UTC)
I see that the only admin here isn't active since Apr 11, 2008. I promise to do an exceptional and good work here as sysop. Removing spam and vandalism quickly. I want to "clean up my name" because of all these sockpuppetry and blocks on commons, es.wiki and en.wiki. I will not fail you :-) --MisterWiki 06:52 13 ana 2010 (UTC)
You have been proven to be a sockpuppeteer in the past, and whilst at least my CU on simplewiki has shown you not to currently have any active socks on our wiki, I think it is best for you not to be granted sysop at this time. You need to (re)-prove yourself firstly! fr33kman t - c 03:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I know. I have talked to many users on-IRC about my intentions to start from scratch as user of Wikimedia. I just want to do good things and I have very good intentions for everyone. If I can be helpful on something, don't think it twice, catch me! :-) --MisterWiki 04:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Please forget the Diegogrez sock. It is thing of the past
^ that is up to you to prove. fr33kman t - c 04:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Give me 3 months... --MisterWiki 04:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine, go prove yourself. In the meantime, request should be declined. fr33kman t - c 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn. --MisterWiki 04:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pmlineditor@cbk_zam.wikipedia

Speedy deletion and Broken Redirects backlogged. Will notify stewards after the deletions are done. Pmlineditor  13:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  Done Laaknor 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
All pages deleted. Pmlineditor  13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
removed--Nick1915 - all you want 23:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


Innv@tl.wikibooks

Please add sysop access on 10 min. for cleanup. Regards, —Innv {ru-ws} 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  Done Added and removed. Kylu 03:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hercule@ace.wikipedia

There are few votes, but the pool is open since 2 weeks, and the 2 sysops have supported it. Regards Hercule 09:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This page don't exist. Please, show us a valid link. Thanks. Alex Pereira falaê 11:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The page is here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This just seems weird - the community is fine with having an admin who does not speak the language? Odd. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 03:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they agree with it. Is it forbidden ?
I'm sysop and crat on wuu.wikipedia while I don't speak Wu, and there is also an admin/crat on wo.wikipedia who don't speak Wolof.
--Hercule 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not unheard of... there are a fair number of other examples out there I believe. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Given the small community should this be temp access?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes with very limited active users.   Done to expire on 2010-02-22.--Jusjih 21:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. --FiliP ██ 10:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests

Razorflame@simple.wikipedia

Consensus has been formed that I should be given the Import rights. The current vote is 5/0 or 5/1 (depending upon if you count Djsasso's concerns as an oppose). Thanks, Razorflame 02:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus in 3 days? Let's wait at least a week. --Daniel Mayer (mav) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The request hasn't been officially closed by a local crat. End date of the request is on Feb 9. A crat will decide. -Barras talk 13:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  On hold until 9 Feb--Nick1915 - all you want 13:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Request is closed now as successful diff. Please assign the permission. Thanks -Barras talk 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      Done — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 12:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)