Steward requests/Permissions/2014-01

Administrator access


Please grant sysop+bot flags for Delete.Bot on pt.wikisource for 3 days. I will notify if the bot ends the tasks before it. A summary of deletions in English is available here. Page listings are at s:pt:User:Delete.Bot. Lugusto 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

--M/ (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Deletion is done, please remove both flags from Delete.Bot Lugusto 17:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Trijnsteltalk 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


Please grant me sysop in Bengali Wikisource. I am active administrator in Bengali Wikipedia. My future planning is to work all Bengali Wikimedia project including Wikisource as sysop.Jayantanth (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  on hold until 8 January  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done.--Jusjih (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you all. Jayantanth (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


For doing translate on mediawik and the link on different languages.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you know that interface translations are to be done on translatewiki:, in principle? --MF-W 13:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean that the zh-hans and zh-hant.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
And also I request to being the admin for picking up this new website.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The temporary requests granted so far have been for very short periods to clean up after the import. If you are asking to be an admin beyond that period then you will need to begin a discussion on zh.wikivoyage to get the support of the new community. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your ideas, the disscussion has been start at voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  On hold until 30 22 January. Trijnsteltalk 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Re Trijnstel:now Wv/zh has made a decision that a admin vote only last for 7 days(voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#管理員投票截止時間), so please any admin can check my Requests on 22/1/14, thank you.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 13:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but still on hold until then. Trijnsteltalk 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The vote will end at 09:52 UTC. Now 5/0/0.--GZWDer (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Voting on zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Hkjacksonhk closed as 5 support, no oppose or neutral. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Vituzzu: May you have a look at these two requests?--GZWDer (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: May you have a look at these two requests?--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. — T. 12:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Gabrielchihonglee nominated himself as a sysop in voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#申請做Sysop. He says he will request other's advice and suggestion. Local discussion is continuing.--GZWDer (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved to voy:zh:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  On hold until 31 22 January. Trijnsteltalk 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@Trijnstel: Same as what hkjacksonhk has said, Wv/zh has made a decision that a admin vote only last for 7 days(voy:zh:Wikivoyage:互助客栈#管理員投票截止時間), so please any admin can check my Requests on 22/1/14, thank you.--Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but still on hold until then. Trijnsteltalk 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Voting on zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Gabrielchihonglee closed as 8 support, no oppose or neutral. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC) @Zhuyifei1999:, thanks! @Trijnstel:please handle, thanks! --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. — T. 06:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Great Brightstar@zhwikivoyage

The vote will end at 09:55 UTC. Now 1/0/4.GZWDer (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Voting on zh:voy:Wikivoyage:申请成为管理员/Great_Brightstar closed as 1 support, 4 neutral and no oppose. I guess I'd better leave the final decision to stewards. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@QuiteUnusual: What about this?--GZWDer (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems like nobody of those who opined neutrally indicated any reasons on the page? --MF-W 16:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Because we are neutral for no reason? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
For me, it's because {{oppose}} (or even weak oppose) doesn't look nice. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Just dosesn't look nice?--Byfserag (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not done I do not see an adequate consensus, and have suggested that the user retries in a few months when the community has a little more size.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access

CheckUser access


Please grant me CU@hewiki, I'm not doing it myself to prevent COI. Already identified. Matanya (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, good luck again. Trijnsteltalk 22:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


--Pallerti Rabbit Hole 09:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold pending identification. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. I will also arrange the other stuff (cu-l etc). Trijnsteltalk 10:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Bedankt voor je hulp! --Pallerti Rabbit Hole 17:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


The French Arbcom has appointed Aratal as a CU. For the French Arbcom, — Racconish Tk 12:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Waiting to be listed here. — T. 12:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Trijnsteltalk 18:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Hesperian 01:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold pending identification. Ruslik (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  Comment instructions sent. Trijnsteltalk 10:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done (will do the other stuff too). Trijnsteltalk 12:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


EvilFreD (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  Comment: permalink to the announcement — TBloemink talk 21:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. --MF-W 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oversight access

Removal of access


per inactivity local policy. Does not appear to have made 10 administrator actions in the last six months.--DangSunM (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


per inactivity local policy. Does not appear to have made 10 administrator actions in the last six months.--DangSunM (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


per inactivity local policy. Does not appear to have made 10 administrator actions in the last six months.--DangSunM (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 07:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


On January 1st we remove all admins who have not made 100 edits/actions in the last year. Since one of the requirements to have Bureaucrat, Checkuser, and Oversighter on our wiki is to be an admin we request that you remove these flags as well. --Djsasso (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Snowolf How can I help? 05:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man@simplewiki

On January 1st we remove all admins who have not made 100 edits/actions in the last year. Since one of the requirements to have Bureaucrat, Checkuser, and Oversighter on our wiki is to be an admin we request that you remove these flags as well. --Djsasso (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Snowolf How can I help? 05:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


I have resigned from my duty as a checker in the HE Wiki, Please remove my checkuser rights, Thanks --Damzow (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Matanya (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin@enwiki

Arbitrators optionally may retain advanced permissions after their term has expired. Kirill Lokshin has indicated he wishes to relinquish the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The Committee thanks him for his service. --LFaraone (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. Trijnsteltalk 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop rights at no.wikipedia. Thank you. Beagle84 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for one day, as usual. --M/ (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done Thank you for your service. -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Media lib@dewiki

Regards. --IusticiaBY (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Pundit (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All sysops@eswiki

Mal uso de sus botones. Por eso deberían remover a todos los bibliotecarios de esta lista y también de esta lista --Pedo con CarGa (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you could provide some examples, where all theses administrators have misused their access (or a discussion in which the community decided to get rid of all their admins due to misuse). Vogone talk 04:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In fact, what would be needed is a discussion in which the community decided to get rid of all their admins for any reasons, and nothing else. --MF-W 04:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the rationale which is to be proven here is: "Mal uso de sus botones." Vogone talk 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, but that is the same as with the inactivity removal request at #Ruben.40hy.wiktionary or the requests to remove hrwiki sysops for perceived abuse: Regardless of whether the things are true, stewards have no power to remove sysops for that reason. It is surely nice if the community has a reason when deciding to remove sysop rights, but the reason itself cannot make stewards do something, only the community decision. --MF-W 19:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a trolling/abuse account, already indefblocked on eswiki. es:Magister Mathematicae 04:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I would had reverted that request without any answer, we are not the infobox for trolls. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but legalistic discussions are also fun. --MF-W 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove Ruben's admin right because of non-activity it is the contributions for Armenian Wiktionary he made ​​the last edition in 2007. --Vadgt (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not done To remove the rights there would need to be a conversation in the community to remove these rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think there's only active editor. --Vadgt (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The process of the Admin activity review will come along soon anyway and propose to remove his sysop rights (Admin_activity_review/2013/ A community decision is also possible if there is only a small number of active editors. --MF-W 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The conversation needs to be undertaken before the stewards can do anything, on the rare chance that the person contributes. I think that the conversation will come to nought, but have it, and then we can move upon it. Same as requests for adminship, have the conversation before stewards can do anything.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop access on Persian Wikipedia. Thank you. ---- Dalba 13:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

24h for reflection, as customary. Pundit (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  On hold for one day, per standard procedure. --M/ (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done thanks for your time given to the project  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Ranking Update@ms.wikipedia

Retired from becoming an administrator. --Ranking Update (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours, per normal practice. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done and thanks  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


We have five established users who say that Ark25 has a conduct unfit for his status, as mentioned in our policy ro:Wikipedia:Revocare#Destituire. Their arguments are mainly that his activity in the last year consists only of adding external links to newspaper stories, in the articles or the discussion pages related to those stories. Ark25 says those are valid reliable sources that may be used to develop the articles in the future. I'm one of the three beaurocrats of and although I do not fully agree with the arguments of the five users, I feel obliged to post this request here. Rsocol (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Do I understand your policy correctly that there will be automatically be a vote about whether Ark25 should become a sysop again after the renewal? --MF-W 17:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Rsocol (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done --MF-W 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove both sysop and bureaucrat access. The user didn't make any sysop or bureaucrat action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove sysop access. The user didn't make any sysop action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove both sysop and bureaucrat access. The user didn't make any sysop or bureaucrat action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove sysop access. The user didn't make any sysop action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Никола Смоленски@sr.wikisource

Please remove sysop access. The user didn't make any sysop action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Саша Стефановић@sr.wikisource

Please remove both sysop and bureaucrat access. The user didn't make any sysop or bureaucrat action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove sysop access. The user didn't make any sysop action within last thirteen months. --FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop access on Buginese Wikipedia because I want retired at there. Thank you.Apli kasi 10:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for one day, per standard procedure. -- Mentifisto 10:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. -Barras talk 13:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.--Apli kasi 14:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


User resigned as administrator. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion in question seem to be a removal, not a resignation. I will contact the user for clarification. Snowolf How can I help? 00:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is the diff you need. --Red Winged Duck (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
G-translate indicates that this is a resignation, so done. -Barras talk 13:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoo Bot@bswiki

My bot no longer needs its sysop flag on bswiki. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -Barras talk 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - Hoo man (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Please, remove all my acess, especially bureaucrat acess. --PedRTalk 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours, per normal practice. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done Thank you for your service. -- Avi (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Please remove my sysop access on --ירון (talk) 05:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold, removal self-requests are kept open for one day. --M/ (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. -- Mentifisto 07:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop and bureaucrat flags from Malayalam Wikipedia --Anoopan (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold, removal self-requests are kept open for one day. --M/ (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. -- Mentifisto 07:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)



I've left a message on this user, really thanking him for his work and wishing him the very best of luck. --M/ (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a community approval for the removal of these rights? I see no link to a conversation. (Noting that there was no community approval for the assignation of rights, which seems to be an oversight when they were awarded.) Please would you have a local bureaucrat approve this request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There was NO community approval to grant this rights. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Which was 3+ months ago. One of your bureaucrats will be able to confirm this and request/confirm the removal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not necessary anymore. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Rights were granted to non-elected people, neither was the community notified nor the local 'crats and now is being refused to remove these rights after the period for which the rights were granted is over? I think it might be worth to start an RfC at meta about that procedure which is certainly worth a discussion, especially because local bureaucrats were not involved while assigning these rights. But why not pinging the two people involved to sort this out quickly, before starting a lot of paper work: @WikiAnika: @DerHexer:. -- Rillke (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a process for assigning the nolimit right? Are local crats able to assign it? As far as I know, neither of both. As this task is already done, I've revoked WikiAnika's right. —DerHexer (Talk) 14:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Then, please explain why a 'crat should confirm the removal as requested by billinghurst?! -- Rillke (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Explanation for Rillke. (ec with below) The original request did not explicitly give the reason for removal, it was only implied in the "expired" discussion link, so Billinghurst may have assumed other than the fact: this was a routine request for removal of "account creator" rights based on a temporary assignment that has "expired." So Billinghurst requested what could be routine, local 'crat approval. However, it was DerHexer who granted the original request, so he simply reversed his own prior action. There is no need for any fuss and certainly not an RfC over this, and there is no proposal from Billinghurst that 'crats should "confirm the removal" of a temporary right. If Rillke wants to require local 'crat or discussion before approval of rights like this, the user is free to suggest this, but it is not current practice, and I expect it would be opposed. --Abd (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, they expired long ago (see here). Trijnsteltalk 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop and crat access on --Bua333 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done Thanks for your efforts to your community. 04:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)

Wiki Loves Monuments Ukraine@commonswiki

--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a community approval for removal of these rights? I see no link to a conversation. (Noting that there was no community approval for the assignation of rights, which seems to be an oversight when they were awarded.) Please would you have a local bureaucrat approve this request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There was NO community approval to grant this rights. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Which was 3+ months ago. One of your bureaucrats will be able to confirm this and request/confirm the removal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This is surprising. Was it requested that a bureacrat confirmed it when the rights were added to this account? In any case, I'd like a statement from the owner(s) of the account whether they need the rights; if they do, it might not be worth the trouble to remove and assign them again when (if) the competition starts in September. odder (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, they expired long ago (see here). Trijnsteltalk 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
As the owner of this account I was surprised that this account still had these rights, I requested them until mid-November and they were to expire on 9 November 2013. Sorry for not formally submitting a request to remove these rights, but I believed this would be done automatically. Concerning community approval, commons:Commons:Account creators advices to contact stewards directly, and as my activity did not include anything else than sending emails (hardly noticeable by the community), I do not believe that this could cause any trouble. Sorry for misunderstanding and I would be glad to follow the procedure once it is established — NickK (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Please, remove the sysop status from my bot as it is not longer needed. --RSSBot (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Vituzzu (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Inactive 7 months. --GZWDer (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please have a zhWP crat confirm that the process has been undertaken, and the rights are to be removed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, KaurJmeb is inactive for 6 months, and still have no edits in the following month after notification, so she should be desysoped per our local policy. zh Bcrat:Kegns 09:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done -Barras talk 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


There are five established users who agree that Alex:D's sysop rights have to be removed due to lack of activity according to ro:Wikipedia:Revocare#Destituire's policy.--Silenzio76 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you please tell if the user has been notified in his own talk? Thank you, --M/ (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
No, there is no notification on his talk page. --Silenzio76 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the local policy does not call for notification at this stage. He will be notified when the automatically vote's procedure will start to determine if he will be sysop again according to ro:Wikipedia:Revocare#Destituire.Regards,--Silenzio76 (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. --M/ (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop access due to inactivity in the main namespace longer than one year. Kicior99 has been notified two weeks earlier ([3]). --Openbk (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --M/ (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop status on ja.wikipedia.三日月 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 1 day, per standard practice. --M/ (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Trijnsteltalk 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Bonjour, j'aimerais que mon statut d'administrateur me soit retiré. Merci. --FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. Snowolf How can I help? 01:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, thank you for your work as a sysop. --M/ (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Misuse their operator buttons Compañeros de oficina FC (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  Not done, you'll have to provide a lot more than that for us to act, and please refer to local processes on eswiki for removal, as stewards act only in the direst of emergencies in these cases. Snowolf How can I help? 01:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Globally inactive since June 2013. I request you remove her sysop and bureaucrat permissions. Geo23wp-es 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Does EsWiki have an inactivity policy? -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it does not warrant the removal of the rights since it requires at least 50 admin actions in the past 2 years, Gusgus has 1782. Please close this as "not done". Savhñ 17:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  Not done --M/ (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop rights on pt@wikipedia. Thanks. PauloEduardo (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. Snowolf How can I help? 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, thank you for your past work as admin! --M/ (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Érico Júnior Wouters @pt.wikinews

No one from community asked his sysops rights and you have gave to him, and now he is using his rights to deleted draft of a project of originals news in wikinews-pt, that's never happen before exactly because of this kind of attitudes. So, as the community did not asked for that right, and he is using his rights without open a dialogue before his actions, I had to request the removal of the rights. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, this is the latest request for temporary adminship. This is his third renewal since May 2012. Techman224Talk 05:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Special:UserRights/Érico Júnior Wouters@ptwikinews shows the rights over time. This person is an experienced user, and I am certain that if you have a conversation with them that they will listen. Any removal of rights needs to be a community decision held at your community, not here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Any permission needs to be a community decision held at our community, but he did without that, and you gave that permission, why the opposite is not ok? Strange no? And he is not from our community, he did not write anything, and someone from community tries to start a writing project he deletes that... thanks Wikimedia Movement, you are the example of free... free of rules for some guys... Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a community discussion - here. If you want to remove the rights, start a new discussion. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


This user was inactive from august 2011 til now and has been notified for desysop since march 2013. Please remove his sysop right. Thank you.--J.Wong 10:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done, thank you. --M/ (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


This user don't have contributions in this wiki since 2012 (and don't make administrative actions) . He says <<Usuario ausente>> in his userpage. I request remove his sysop permission. Thanks, Geo23wp-es 18:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly as per same reason. Please avoid making further removal requests without understanding and following instructions. Thank you, M/ (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, grazie. Geo23wp-es 18:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


  Done. — T. 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


  Done. — T. 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop status on mediawikiwiki as I am not active enough in my opinion to keep it. Also keeping in mind that this wiki is a global sysop wiki. --— TBloemink talk 13:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done--Vituzzu (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my bureaucrat and admin status on the above wiki, per my own request, as I have been in some unsolved conflicts that deterred me from further helping. Local stewart seems too busy to fulfill my removal request. Thanks. --Gobbler (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Already   Done two weeks ago based upon your onwiki request. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my sysop rights, thanks. --Siechfred (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
oh yes, please, wait 24 h at least, -jkb- 14:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Even 48 if needed. --Vituzzu (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not needed. Thanks in advance, Siechfred (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, thank you for your efforts as an administrator at dewiki. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


--JAn Dudík (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't see anything on talkpage, maybe did you send an email? --Vituzzu (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkpage notification from 19/11/2013 is here. --Vachovec1 (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Err, both of you said "2013" while that's "2012" and Draffix was active before Nov '12. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Not mine to query a request of a 'crat at the wiki. Their accountability.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my Admin flag since I don't want to do any admin work for the forseeable future. Thank you, --Tinz (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. Snowolf How can I help? 22:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
ok, time to go on a banning spree I can wait that long. --Tinz (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done by Mentifisto at 04:04
--M/ (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


Please remove my checkuser status, since I am not an active checkuser anymore. There is a selection procedure going on to replace me. Hjvannes (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done, thank you for your work over the last 2 years. I have requested you are unsubscribed from cu-l, etc. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

أبو حمزة@ar.wikipedia

Please remove my sysop rights, thanks. --أبو حمزة (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

  On hold for 24 hours as per standard procedure. -Barras talk 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done, thank you for your work as sysop!
--M/ (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


Removal of access ur:User:Urdutext from ur Urdu Wikipedia Administrator to normal user.

I convey my regards to all the users, I hope you are doing well and are enjoying good health. The subject matter of this topic must have been clear by now as you go by page title (i.e. removal of adminship from user:Urdutext). Before stating the disputed matter, I would like to draw your attention towards the brief wiki introduction of the subjected admin. Mr. Urdutext is a senior user and admin of this encyclopedia, moreover the oldest in this present active admin panel. His contributions towards this wikipedia, especially in the field of mathematics have been worthwhile (although this is an altogether a different aspect, as to his use of self created language and terms are so painfully abstruse that most users tended to avoid them). To crystallize the picture as clearly as possible, I would like to inform you that when at the time he was chosen as an admin for his services, the users were few and very little in number. As the conditions were, back then, he was given away the adminship without much considerations and voting; and as well because uptil then the rules and regulations regarding the adminship were not completely compiled on Urdu Wikipedia. This was the brief introduction of his previous activities and role; now here on Urdu Wikipedia, from quite some time (after having remained inactive for a long period) he has been engaging himself in anti-wiki activities, like: Instead of guiding new users on proper use and referring them to the guideline pages and wiki directives, he has been sabotaging their rights with the baton of rules. Unjust in using his authority by taking unfair steps against the active users. Being scornful and making personal attacks on users (e.g. he commented on this talk page attacking one of the respected wiki user as: جن اصحاب نے سائنس پر سرے سے کچھ لکھا ہی نہ ہو، یا سائنس کی الف بے سےبھی واقف نہ ہوں، اور صرف لمبی لمبی بحث کرنے کے شوقین ہوں، ان کو کیا جواب دیا جائے؟ those who never wrote anything on science or do not have even a faintest idea of its basics and fundamentals, but like to propagate their conjectures through never-ending debates, what would be an answer that should be given to them? While that user keeps writing articles in one of the most prominent urdu scientific journal). Use of self created scientific terminology and abstruse language in the wiki articles and their titles and moreover forcefully imposing on others the same. Most of the users have shown their discontent with him for his rough and rude behavior! Etc.

Verdict in English

  • In favor of removal of adminship: 19
  • In opposition: 6

--Tahir mq (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, is there a policy on that covers the removal of admin rights? That is, can you provide a link to a policy that says (for example) an admin will lose their rights if x% of editors vote to remove them? If not, we will act on the consensus, but it would be helpful if there is a formal policy. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Policy معزولی - Deposition
معزولی - Deposition
Those Administrators who are not active for a year can be ousted from the administrative post. Non active administrator will be contacted on their talk page and E-mail (if available) and will be informed that you can be nominated for the ouster of administrative post because you are not active for a long period.
A Poll to deposition an administrators can be started only by an bureaucrat. Option to deposition an administrator is with Wikimedia Steward. After ouster vote a Wikimedia Steward on Meta-Wiki is contacted, and as per the result of the voting Steward is requested to demote the administrator from his position.
Note: In this case ur:User:محمد شعیب has started the voting, who is a bureaucrat on Urdu Wikipedia.
--Tahir mq (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done. Sorry that took some time as I needed to read and understand the policy and all the votes. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. There is no formal policy for admin removal on ur.wikipedia. The "policy" page referred above is likely creation of user:شعیب or user:Tahir themselves (possibly a translation from en.wikipedia) to which no one paid heed as many pages are translated/copied routinely from en.wikipedia.
  2. Urdu wikipedia was created 10 years ago but to date there are only 25K articles. The reason is easy to understand. Most of the writers in Urdu on the web have been of religious bent espousing their particular sectarian creed and hate message. Many a times these "religious nuts" have tried to take over control of the ur.wikipedia. But user:urdutext and some other older admins had prevented that. But the takeover attempts have been becoming more sophisticated in recent years. The present campaign against user:urdutext was spearheaded by a religious fanatic (see his articles on his father's religious ideology on ur.wikipedia) in which he skillfully garnered support of others who had a longstanding dispute over Urdu nomenclature in scientific articles.
  3. The stewards should use exercise better judgement than just looking at a poll result on a wikipedia with low activity.

--Urdutext (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of sysop access due to inactivity in the main namespace longer than one year. WarX has been notified two weeks earlier ([5]). --Openbk (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done. -- Mentifisto 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


Please revoke my sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter rights. Thanks in advance. Eduardofeld (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And please delete me from the three mailing lists: unblock; checkuser; oversight. Eduardofeld (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Note that this would leave only one oversighter at ptwiki. --Rschen7754 02:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of this. Eduardofeld (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do it as soon as possible. Thanks in advance. Eduardofeld (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
... which means, one oversighter = none at all, the right will be removed from Teles too then (OS policy). Trijnsteltalk 12:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of all the consequences of my decision. Eduardofeld (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright then,   Done, both the rights and the removal from checkuser-l. I've also removed the oversight rights from Teles.
You need to ask others for unblock-pt-l (list admins) and oversight-wp-pt (Teles). Trijnsteltalk 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

According to the local rules, Dutch Wikipedia administrators need to make at least 250 edits per twelve months to keep their sysop access. Krinkle made less than 250 edits in the past twelve months and therefore he does not meet this activity criterium anymore. Please remove his sysop access. Mathonius (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like he has more than 250 now that he did a few edits after this request was placed. Does that change anything?—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 05:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
According to me, this makes no difference. At the time that the request was placed, the administrator hadn't 250 edits over the last 12 months. JetzzDG (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Good question, Teles. I agree with JetzzDG. For certainty and clarity sake, this policy only lends itself for a strict interpretation, meaning that Krinkle lost his adminship the moment he didn't meet the activity criterium, and that anything that happens after the request is irrelevant. Otherwise, hypothetically speaking, the amount of time a steward takes to take care of a request becomes significant, and the activity criterium might become pointless if we'd allow admins to quickly perform enough edits each time they fail to meet the criterium. Mathonius (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's my homewiki so I obviously won't act, but I think it's important that one of the Dutch bureaucrats can confirm or deny this request. Trijnsteltalk 14:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I've send an email to them via their mailing list. Trijnsteltalk 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  On hold - Agreed, on hold pending confirmation of that request by a local bureaucrat. -Barras talk 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Teles: For the record, I didn't suddenly become active after this request was made. I've been active throughout all of 2013 (been active pretty much every month, and made edits, as can be seen in my contributions). Also note that this arbitrary criterium does not account for log actions (patrolling, un/deletion, un/blocking, un/protecting) which I've also performed as an administrator. As mentioned there on my talk page, I was indeed a lot less active than last year but started building up again already back in October 2013. I failed to catch up with the activity criterium in time, but as it has over the last three months my activity will continue to increase and the activity criterium won't be of much significance after that. Either way, I understand that the enforcement of the policy is separate from the policy itself and that technically I should've lost my rights on January 26th because on that day my "(last edit - 250)" edit was from January 20th 2013. If I do lose my rights I would soon enough sign up again and expect to be accepted again. I'll be curious as to whether we let the paper work get to us or not. Thanks, –Krinkletalk 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Local bureaucrat here. (Although I don't see why my opinion should be valued higher than others just because I am a bureaucrat. The issue here is one of interpreting the rules - there's always a grey area there, and IMHO all opinions of active Wikipedians should be valued equally when discussing the grey area.)
The local rule states (my translation): "a moderator who performed less than 250 edits in the past 12 month, will lose its moderator status". Technically this was the case, and Krinkle should have lost it. Krinke is right in saying that this rule is arbitrary and might not perfectly reflect moderator actions (for instance, deleted edits do not count towards the 250). I fully agree with him on that point as well. However, this is the rule as the community has set, and this is thus the rule that should be enforced. It is true that by now, Krinkle again has 250+ edits, but not enforcing the rule, would create strange situations, as Mathonius sketched. The local rule clearly states "becoming moderator again can happen via the regular procedure". On the other hand, I don't like snowballing either. My suggestion, is to leave it to the Dutch WP-community. If a large enough part of that community feels Krinkle should lose his moderator rights because he was under the threshold for 1 day, that part can organise a desysop. Therefore, I suggest that, for now, no actions are required. (I would like to stress again that I feel uncomfortable if my opinion is preferred only because I am a bureaucrat.) CaAl (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I concur. - Taketa (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to make the same point as CaAl to the fact that a bureaucrat on nl-wiki has an equal say in this as any other nl-wiki user. My own opinion is that strict interpretation of the sentence means that on this moment Krinkle has more than 250 edits and could therefore not be desysopped, but it is best to wait for an nl-wiki decision on this part. Basvb (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion that's a very strange way of looking at it. It's like saying to a police officer that has stopped you for speeding: "Sorry officer, at this moment I'm not speeding, and therefore you can't give me a ticket!" Trewal (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to heartily thank the 'crats who commented above. The reason why bureaucrat input is sometimes looked for by us is that bureaucrats are highly trusted users of one community who have been entrusted with the granting of the userright in question and who speak the language and would be very familiar with how the policies surrounding adminship are applied. I am marking this request as   Not done as all three of the commenting 'crats thought it wise not to act on it until and only if the community decides otherwise. Please feel free to keep commenting in this thread if deemed useful. Snowolf How can I help? 21:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    • So the local rules, accepted by a community vote, mean nothing when three bureaucrats come up with a new interpretation of the rules? The Banner (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @The Banner: I read: "the three bureaucrats want confirmation from the local community before any action is taken". However, I have to agree with you on the fact that the community should have been notified. EvilFreD (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In order to avoid such confusion, you should consider clarifying your rules. In German Wikipedia, sysops are notified first and can comment on it for some time before they forcibly loose their rights. That's much more polite than waiting for that one second when an administrator has not edited enough. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 16:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The rules are clear: if a moderator (dutch for admin) doesn't meet up with the criterium of 250 edits, (this is a rule, which users agree about!) his moderator rights should be taken. It's a shame that in this way the community gets overruled by meta admins or crats. A crat needs to execute just his task: i.e. what the asks from him/her: simply remove the bits if a moderator doesn't meet the criteria. If we are supposed to (preferably 100%) trust our elected crats and admins the first premise is that they follow 100% the rules set out by their communities. This trust now can be restored by taking the admin rights from Krinkle a.s.a.p. He can recandidate himself then when he is ready to do so (and probably he will be re-elected). Until then I see all admin actions performed on by user Krinkle as invalid, and they should be rolled back if they occur.Tjako (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Please, ask to community what should be done in cases like this and we will be happy to follow what you decide. Apparently, policy does not mention a situation like this and stewards can't decide for you. We are kindly asking to clarify what to do when admins are not inactive anymore as they have more than 250 in a year. Here all you can do is place a request when a consensus is reached somewhere else or in order to follow a policy. It is unlikely that a discussion here will change this closure.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 00:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
In "cases like this"? This is a clear case: an administrator on doesn't fulfill the demanded criteria on, so there is a request placed here to remove his rights. Then you guys should *just do so*: just remove his rights. And not put it back in our community because YOU guys make a mistake by *not* removing his rights. So now we have an admin walking around who has no right to be an admin. The only solution is not to tell it's your problem. No: it's now Meta's problem, because you did not follow the ruling policies. And that's bad, because we put trust in our stewards when such a request is placed. The only solution to restore faith in you guys is to reopen this case and remove User:Krinkle's rights a.s.a.p. And then he can apply for a new administratorship on if he choses so, and if he meets the criteria on that moment. The moment the request was made here to remove his rights was caused by our very clear inactivity criterium. So that moment should be taken in account. If Krinkle then starts editing to try to reach the criterium, that can't be a reason to abandon the policies, that dictate: <250 edits: not enough for admin, so remove rights. You also need to take in account that your steward jobs are based on your trusted, elected status, based on confidence. If you are not able to act responsibly you damage that confidence. Regards, Tjako (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That's the point. Unlike what you said, he does fulfill criteria now.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 16:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the moment the Dutch community placed a request for removal here he did not. And Krinkle admitted that he did not meet the criteria. Even some respected users here admitted that strictly speaking his rights should be removed. It's just concierge work here for the 'crats to do so. Even if discussions HERE follow because Krinkle edited more and made some more than 250 edits after his rights should be removed. We don't want bargaining crats and stewards, we want to be able to trust that they follow the policies, which they did not. Even more strange or remarkable is that while Krinkle still had his rights (because crats did not remove them instantly) he reapplied for admin status in For applying for a new adminship on Dutch wikipedia are btw slightly different rules than for a desysop-due-to-inactivity, so it's completely irrelevant if he meets any criteria for desysop-due-to-inactivity now. This kind of bending procedures is bad for trust and faith in our system. That's all. Regards, Tjako (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Please revoke my admin rights on nl.wikipedia immediately. –Krinkletalk 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  On hold for 24 hours per standard practice. Snowolf How can I help? 04:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Where can I read more about this standard practice? I checked the introduction on top of this page, and tried some links, but cannot find anything about such practice. This request was posted on 27 January 2014 at 03:58 UTC so I also believe the 24 hours are already over. Two later requests that came after this one, one of which created a bit of discussion as well, are all done by now. How are they nonstandard while this one apparently is standard? Thank you, Ivory (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The original request by Mathonius was denied within 18 hours, so even this request originally did not meet a supposedly "standard practice". Furthermore: this request has been followed to much discussion already. I see no reason to put this request on hold since the local community has very clearly stated that the sysop rights should have been removed in the discussion that followed on the decision not to decide. EvilFreD (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
When someone voluntarily resigns his adminship a request is normally put on hold. Krinkle requested that his tools are being removed at 04:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC) so I think that's why it is on hold. They are treating this as an voluntarily resign and not a removal because of the activity criteria. Seems like the safest way to deal with this to me. Is there any need to rush this over? I don't think so. We can discuss if this is a voluntarily resign but there is no reason why we should. And please don't blame Snowolf of any of the other stewards for this. He is just doing what he is expected to do. Namely being careful when dealing with complicated cases like this. Consensus for removal has to be reached locally. And it's not their fault that our local rules are not clear enough. Apparently the rules can be read in different ways like most of our rules do. Natuur12 (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Addition to Natuur12's statement: this is also done to prevent rage quits. While this cannot really be marked as a rage quit, it's done anyway, it is a standard practice. — TBloemink talk 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. EvilFreD (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)   Done With thanks to Krinkle for his time spent administering.

Re the other commentary, stewards have broad experience in managing rights removals, so please allow us to manage the workflow here, and trust us in our practice and experience in rights removals. Our practice for rights removal is that we will generally let a self-placed resignation stand in place for 24 hours to allow for a period of quiet reflection on the request. Requests by bureaucrats (or equivalent) for the removal of rights at their wiki will be actioned as having been through the community-approved process for removal. Requests by others from that wiki requesting a removal will be actioned on a case-by-case basis, though may be referred back to bureaucrat at the wiki, depending on the judgement and confidence of the individual steward in due process. I hope that helps to explain some of the steps taken. @Ivory: Practice and convention are not necessarily documented, in fact many common practices in life are not documented, they can be discussed, and agreed upon and still not be written into a public guidance document.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but he could not ask for removal of his right. according to the rules of the nl-wiki he had no rights anymore. This really sucks. All a bunch of crap. How diifficult can it be? Just follow rules. Sorry billinghurst, you ask for trust? For sure no trust here any more. Vdkdaan (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hear hear. So point me to some places where I can find these discussions, please. I am amazed I have to ask for it so bluntly. The fact that "many common practices in life are not documented" is not an explanation or excuse. I still don't see why this request was first swiftly denied in a supposedly nonstandard manner, then treated as a standard voluntary resignation which it never was. I also still struggle to understand why, if this practice is so important, the other requests currently on this page were dealt with within a day. Please take Tjako's tip about acting responsibly to heart. Please do all you can to restore the shaken confidence instead of shaking it further. As a practical tip, please put a link to this much needed public guidance document at the top the page. Thanks, Ivory (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That is quite enough. We received a request, we asked for advice from nlwiki's 'crats about how to proceed as the policy seemed unclear and we acted as they advised us to. After that, we received a request from Krinkle that we remove their rights and we proceeded as we usually do in these cases. I understand that you do not like how nlwiki's unclear rules have been interpreted by your 'crats, but that does not give you an excuse for your behavior here. Krinkle's rights were removed appropriately and timely, as is our duty. Now move on. There's a lot of productive work to be done on Wikimedia, on nlwiki, on wikidata, even here on meta. Pursuing pointless crusades against those who disagree with your particular view of an unclear policy is not one of them, and I am going to close this thread. The matter has wasted enough time already. Snowolf How can I help? 23:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


A bot account used to block open proxy, not active anymore and per my request at owner talkpage Matanya (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done by Bsadowski1. Trijnsteltalk 12:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Esprit Fugace@commons

Temporary administrator status expired January 31. See commons:Commons:Administrators and commons:User talk:EugeneZelenko#End of temporary adminship. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That is tomorrow. on hold Matanya (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  Done Matanya (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)


Elected as admin in the local el.wikinews wiki. The link is n:el:Βικινέα:Υποψήφιοι διαχειριστές/Xaris333. Please provide access to sysop tools. --Γλαύκος (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2014-01-07. --MF-W 03:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
removed--Jusjih (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello, since the wiki has no admin and Komi-Permyak is strongly related to Komi, I'd like to get the admin flag on that wiki. --Comp1089 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

On hold for 1 week until 13 July. --MF-W 17:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2014-01-13. --MF-W 19:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
removed Matanya (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


(Consulted my community for adminship) Satdeep gill (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2014-01-13. 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) 14:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
removed Matanya (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


He was a temporary sysop before and now run again with the support of the Vietnamese community. Currently we have 1 permanent sysop in Wikibooks but is no longer active so we need a permanent one on this Wiki. It's annoying to reapply every 6 months. Trongphu (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-01-17. 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.
b:vi:Special:PermanentLink/77314 … for a second time around, I am willing to grant 12 months — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

John F. Lewis@cywikiquote

A relatively inactive wiki, requesting sysop for clean up of the wiki and cleaning up after myself. Local announcement listed above. For competent sake, I am an administrator on Wikidata so I assume that will cover the 'Are they experienced' box if stewards look for it on a small wikis. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

On hold until 19 October. --MF-W 15:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Assigned sysop rights for three months per local announcement. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 15:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Les Meloures@lb.wiktionary

Request for adminship.

Hello, I think this is for the fifth time I make a request. Since beginning I was the only real luxemburgish native speaking member. I am an administrator on Wikpedia:lb since five years, and I don't understand why on wiktionary I'm only granted for temporary adminship. If I'm not active, there is no native luxemburgish speaking user. I don't do this work because I have nothing else to do, but as I was requestet to save the lb: Wiktionary. If you know someone who can do this work better, you may name hime as an administrator. I will never more ask for temporary adminship and continue this requests every six months, like a little boy who asks for gifts. I let you be the judge if an adminship is usefull or not. Best regards --Les Meloures (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I think I would agree with this Les Meloures user, especially like the saying: "I will never more ask for temporary adminship and continue this requests every six months, like a little boy who asks for gifts." Or that would look like a puppet or beggar that ask for sysop every 6 months. Trusted users should be trusted and treated with more respect in my opinion. Their contribution are obvious very valuable.Trongphu (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
For the moment the IP is creating wrong, and misswritten articles. As I am no more an admin I cannot delete and actually nobody of all stewards is able to verify what is wrong and what not. I was 15 days in hospital and in this time I could not verify. Afterwards i had a job for ten days to correct. Please hurry up with adminship otherwise the lb:wiktionaty will have bad future. --Les Meloures (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Please start a discussion on a central community page (such as the Village Pump), even if the wiki is inactive, and leave it open for at least seven days. Then provide the link to this discussion in the "discussion=" box above. If there are no objections to your adminship after that period, stewards will consider temporary adminship, but these steps must be followed first. The local community must be given an opportunity to voice their opinions before we decide the outcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion on a central community page for adminship was done allready once on this page, in June and the stewards were informed. Bur I think nobody noticed, an again nobody notices that the lb: community is very little and rather without permanent users. But it grows step by step and the saving of the project needed hundreds of hours, done by less than 3 users. The problem is this: If there is no permanent survey by an admin than will become the playstation op a lot of IP-users, as you may see again on the activities today. Best regards --Les Meloures (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand what Les Meloures says and I think we could make an effort, even if it's contrary to our principles. I helped him to start this wiki and know that he is wise and trustable. The best compromise would be, in my humble opinion, to grant a very long delay of temporary adminship, such as two years. What do you (Les Meloures and other stewards) think about it ?
I thought about something to help the luxembourgish community to grow up, because you're the only contributor on this project right now. What abouting welcoming users who contribute for the first time and offering them your help, thanking users who made a good contribution, etc. ? This is done on lots of projects and would not be a waste of time. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see nothing wrong with 6 months temporary adminship. This is not a question of gifts or little boys. I'm not aware we've had any complaints about Les Meloures' admin work over lbwikt. Sometimes we do tell the user a week before the permissions are going to expire so they can arrange a vote. I understand it might be a bit boring having to ask each six months the community and obtain the silence as response, but two years of temporary adminship will be excesive, notwithstanding one year maximum of temporary adminship as exception may work for me. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont know what can help the community to grow up. Actually two users are working.Some IP-adresses and specially one of the flamish region takes the lb wiktionary as his own playstation. He does experiments in all possible language that we are not able to control, and he does so many mistakes, and so more than 60% of his contributions must be deleted. A weekly survey with noticing other steward to delete is not the best solution. On the request to 3 years ago to help saving lb.Wiktionary I agreed, and a lot of cleaning up was done. A young user helped for some months, but actually he is busy on his studium, but still remains interested. If lb Wiktionary should be considered as as trustworthy there must be no articles that are not controlable and verified by an nativ speaker, and for foreign languages there should exist interwiki to confirm. I do this controls since beginning of the request. As I am a confirmed admin on lb.Wikipedia since 5 years, I don't understand the problem for giving an adminship for longer time. I am an 62 years old man, intrested on helping to grow this project, but i am not willing every 6 months to repeat the same litany to have adminship. Best regards --Les Meloures (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. No problem for me, as I said above. Waiting the opinion of other stewards, I want to have your point of view on this MediaWiki extension, which could help you to review the articles. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm shure that this tool maybe very usefull, for big wikis. It is used on lb.wikipedia and helps to localise rapidly new articles without revision. As it seems only two of the admnins know how it works, and the community was never informed how it works. You must know that users on little wikis, even if they are admins and very usefull to that wiki, don't surf on every project, and a lot of them don't understand english enough to follow every details and explications. --Les Meloures (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
No need to understand english... It has been translated in French long ago, and as far as I know most of the luxembourgish people speak french... Also, you can translate it in the project's language if you need. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2014-01-22. . It's the maximum we can do for now (see MarcoAurelio's comment above). Sorry if this has taken a lot of time to be solved and many thanks for the work you're doing on this project. If you need stewards assistance, please let us know. Regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


For clean-up of the wiki after its importation to sub-domain. I request the sysop bit for 1 week only. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 23:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  Granted for 1 month to expire on 2014-01-22. Local discussion not possible as there's no community yet. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WMF researchers

Per WMF kabooz. --MF-W 15:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

All three ::removed by tanvir. Matanya (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellaneous requests


I am requesting permission for MassMessage sender rights. I intend to utilize the tool on English Wikipedia. I have been involved in the formulation of WikiProject newsletters, messages and invitations for WikiProject Food and drink, WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, WikiProject Breakfast, WikiProject Brands, WikiProject Cleanup, WikiProject Invention, WikiProject Hotels and other projects.

As an example, when I sent the September 2013 and October 2013 WikiProject Food and drink newsletters to project members, I had to do so manually, which is tedious and time-consuming. This also inhibits one's desire to create new newsletters, due to the time involved in sending them manually. With this tool, I can focus much more upon formulation of the newsletters with other project members, and much less time sending them.

Therefore, I respectfully submit my request for MassMessage sender permission, and thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Done as a local en.wikipedia admin, but usually this is requested locally. --Rschen7754 20:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Rschen7754: thanks so much for the prompt response. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Locally handled.--Vituzzu (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

John F. Lewis@wikidatawiki

Hello, I was wondering if I could get Importer rights at wikidatawiki temporarily for an importupload from metawiki. It's mainly moving over the archives of past Wikidata status updates from a mailing list discussion. Lydia and I decided moving the archives over would be a nice idea too and thus I am requesting importer rights since the transwiki rights I have at the moment would make this quite tedious. As far as I know there is no local policy on Wikidata governing this right. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

  Done Will be revoked tomorrow. Matanya (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Tomorrow is more than enough time :) John F. Lewis (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13@meta.wikimedia

I am requesting permission for MassMessage sender rights. I already have this userright on the English Wikipedia and have made some documentation improvements on that site regarding this tool. I would like to be able to expand the documentation more on other wikis and be able to send interwiki messages using this tool. Thank you for your consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking the stewards? O_o Perhaps you meant to use WM:RFH? I must say this is not a good presentation for someone asking rights on Meta. :) --Nemo 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Please request it on WM:RFH. I could grant this permission if you do so, since you seem to know how it works. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Will do... How to request this right isn't very well documented at this point (which is part of what I hope to rectify). Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)