Open main menu

Steward requests/Permissions/2016-03

Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 March 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.


Administrator access

Արամ Սողոմոնյան@hywikipedia

-- ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Extensive discussion moved to [1]. —MarcoAurelio 18:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
As said on talk page, no election policy violation appears to have ocurred, and he's plenty of community support. I'd say we can grant this. —MarcoAurelio 15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree, no convincing argument is provided so far that the election policy been violated thus done. There are plenty of support vote in the local page (100%), even if we count Vadgt's concern here, that's not going to change the status of the favor ratio. ~ Nahid Talk 06:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User Илья Драконов@ce.wikipedia

Ilya Drakonov (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Cheers. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC).

User Naulagmi@ikwikipedia

(your remarks) Naulagmi (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please start a local request first. --Stryn (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Naulagmi: hello? This will be marked as not done soon, if you won't give any answer. --Stryn (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Not done, no response. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


No comments/opposes on sysop request in week (1,000+ edits there, need to use for deletion of some pages and further taking care of my work on "Engelsk" there). --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The last time you requested local adminship, there was opposition. Could you please try to contact that user, and see if they have any comments on your current request? Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Done --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
There are issues in need of taking care. I'll return back to request soon. Thanks. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Tagging as not done, for now. Please start a new request when ready. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Maestro 121@zhwiki

I hope I can do anti-vandallism works and manage tube pages.(For six weeks)Maestro 121 (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

  Not done We can't do anything, zhwiki have their own process. Start a local election in there. ~ Nahid Talk 10:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Tulsi Bhagat@mai.wikipedia

I was a permanent admin there on maiwiki but few days ago, i just remove my admin right for some real life problems and now, I want to back to my works there on maiwiki with admin tools. Regards, TBhagat (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  On hold till 25 March 2016. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Done ~ Nahid Talk 12:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


  • Motive for request: I want to try tools adminst or bureucrat, I was reading guideline before. And to try edit interface on mediawiki. Thanks you.

AYST201 (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  Not done test wiki has local crats so you need to request for this right in here. Furthermore, seeing your block on outreachwiki I think you should first read and understand what we do in Wikimedia. You can start from here ~ Nahid Talk 16:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks you AYST201 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat access


Good evening. Please consider the fact that I was twice administrator for 6 months (without a vote and with the voices). My bot AryanBot is a bot admin. Thank,--AryanSogd (t) 18:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the request, there is a high level of support (19 support / 0 neutral / 0 oppose). There are three active admins, one inactive, of which one active one holds temporary adminship for 7 months. There are 78 users who have edited in the last 30 days. I'm inclined to grant this, but I would like a couple of other stewards to look over the request first since this will totally remove meta from the local user rights process. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Though it is not a policy (usually) that the requester must be on the sysop group to become a crat but I'd rather not comfortable to grant the crat right if they are not in the sysop group as well, since it is customary. Besides that, out of 4 admins: one of them is bot, one of them has stopped editing 6 days later, after they were granted temporary right on 31 August 2015 (the right is going to expire 31st of this month). So there are actually two admins right now and one of them performed their last log action in nearly one and a half months ago. Among those active users, only 13 of them (without bots) have made 10+ edits in the last 30 days (I didn't check for cross-wiki automatic edits like, file moving or username change). To summarize these, I'd say the community is not big enough to grant a crat. Best, ~ Nahid Talk 02:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz, thanks for support! @NahidSultan, if I understand you, many local communities for you does not matter and you know better what we need and what is not? Then why there are rules and whether they translate into Tajik, If they eventually useless? The number of administrators as well as active participants (it seems to me), not grows thanks to some stewards, who manage to create problems for no reason. If you know how to solve our problems, I gladly and with a light heart, give you my voice. You have to promise that you will always be present in our project and to respond to local needs. Work which you will need to deal with:
  1. Administrators control the activity.
  2. Assign up to vote and flag bot and administrator (other instruments we do not have).
  3. Translation rights (which we have almost no)
  4. Responding to local issues to remove unnecessary pages
  5. Block unfair participants
  6. Patrol article and see if such articles, I ask you to do so, so that they are at least like this.
  7. To create the necessary templates and modules to improve the quality of our articles and much more.

Agree, I am a simple party it is not obliged to be engaged all these. I try to minimize our problems - you try to enlarge them. Every time when faced with Metawiki, more and more disappointed in the correct choice, but the native language It makes me go forward, despite any bureaucratic obstacles. Sorry for my english and thank you for your attention--AryanSogd (t) 06:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, after reading through your comment it seems to me that you have taken my comment personally and if in anyway I hurt your feelings I apologize. But my comment above is not in anyway meant for you or the community rather it was just my thoughts over the situations. As a steward we just execute the task through roles and where situations may come up we just use the best practices that's why neither of us marked the request as done so that other stewards can voice their opinions. As I said above, Usually we do not accept crats on small communities and in the past, we didn't probably get a crat request (as far as I'm aware of but I maybe wrong) without being on the sysop group. With all this this request creates a unique situation for us. I'm also from a small community so of course I know the pain of that. As for the argument, the task you've mentioned, they can be done without the crat flag except (granting bot and administrator). I don't know how stewards create problems growing the community by interfering; rather they are pretty fast and friendly to the request. Once again, I'm sorry if I hurt you in anyway with my comment. Best, ~ Nahid Talk 07:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll tell you how the eldest and had seen a lot in this life, that the mere presence of a bureaucrat on the project, аdministrators will make on another it refers to commit themselves + This would make it easier to obtain the necessary tools. For those who wish to conduct administrative work and such we have, but at the moment the process of the preparation of these instruments is so humiliating that no one wants to give queries. That is what I wrote at the top, this tip of the iceberg of our problems, I do not want to go into the details and take out the garbage at home. In the election of stewards I spoke with Ruslik. He said that the need to have at least 15 high-quality voices for bureaucrat flag and not less than five votes for a permanent administrator. I wish the participants and spent my time on empty election. I said everything, thank you--AryanSogd (t) 09:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(Former steward giving my perspective) The reason that stewards are usually cautious in giving out bureaucrat rights in situations like this is that it makes it difficult for them to intervene later if something goes wrong, i.e. the community is later unhappy with the bureaucrat, or they start abusing the tools. There's case after case listed on RFC of such situations. --Rschen7754 23:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I know. In my experience our community is increasing due to many factors. This wiki awards, after receipt of which they begin to benefit even more. Thank edits in the history of useful editing. Template Invitation to participate in different projects posted on the relevant pages of the discussions. Thanks to the discussion pages and above all the friendly treatment to each other. After I had promised that the problems with obtaining the necessary tools nebudet longer, if I get a bureaucrat flag, community intensified. The last two years have not seen such activity. People believed in me, because I promised to give the project a robotic support and I kept his word. In summary I want to say that the goal is to improve the technical possibilities for comfortable work community and the fight against vandalism. Thank--AryanSogd (t) 06:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The participants' edit counts are 320, 1951, 102, 14552, 18, 405, 141, 21, 2, 83, 9, 21, 3692, 45, 119, 18, 30, 30384, 264, 27, i.e. only 4 users with more than 500 edits. I think this is not enough. It's also not appropriate for a single bureaucrat to be elected on a wiki with only 3 admins, in my opinion. --MF-W 03:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In the case where the flag will administrators twice longer in a short time, two of which are scientists and one employee of the National Library of Tajikistan. If not, I doubt that in the coming years, someone wants to come to you for the administrator flag, other tools to combat vandalism we no. On the page to delete, I am bringing up the name of the bot (nonsense). Thank--AryanSogd (t) 03:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this comment at all. Care to reformulate? --MF-W 17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Above I wrote not for you. I use machine translation, so my English is so awful, and I'm confused already. Thank--AryanSogd (t) 18:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand where this requirement of 500 edits comes from? It is rather unprecedented in the history of local elections and looks arbitrary and capricious. Ten edits from accounts that was created before elections would suffice. Ruslik (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it is arbitrary, but so is "ten edits from accounts that was created before elections". I was merely indicating that a possible way to look at this. I regularly check participants' edit counts also in sysop requests when deciding whether to give permanent or temporary adminship. It seems prudent to consider it regarding bureaucrats as well. --MF-W 17:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry, I did not realize you The above argument. As bureaucrats have no rules. According to our voting rules on the status of administrator, you must have at least 5 revisions to take part in the vote and these rules do not, I wrote. According to Russian regulations, the right to vote when choosing a bureaucrat are parties to make 30 amendments to the application. If there is a rule in which the participants have made at least 500 edits do not have the right to vote, then why are there still the stewards were not warned about the administrators and bureaucrats in all language editions of Wikipedia, so that they can fix it? Thank--AryanSogd (t) 07:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruslik according to our rules, only two people could not vote because at the time of voting had one revision and these rules apply to administrators. As bureaucrats and nothing will not be in the case of a negative decision. Also, there will be neither a coordination of the work of administrators and control over them. There is a basis for the growth in the number of administrators, but I I doubt that any of them would want to come here to get to 3 or 6 months Administrator status. With the increasing number of participants, increasing the number of vandals vandals And much more than the participants. I have no desire to enter into each time a bot account from your phone to the request of the participants blocked vandals or delete pages with no encyclopedic value, but I have to do this because they do not always have the opportunity to work with your computer. Agree, the bot must work with the program, which was approved. Administrators can not 24 hours a day it is at the site as well as the other tools we have that would allow to deal with shortcomings mean it is necessary to compensate for this increase in the number of administrators and not for 3-6 months as you do, and on a continuous basis. If you are afraid that I will abuse this tool, I can on your page to link to any of the stewards, so that in case of complaints, the participants knew who to turn to or the page of the stewards, which I specifically for this purpose translate.

The second option: check the contributions of our active members and who will count themselves worthy, all my votes count it, but to the Tajik language was native to him, to know all of our problems and working on getting it fixed.--AryanSogd (t) 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There are now 20 supporting votes on the request. There is no reason to not grant it at this point; while I understand the concerns of my colleagues, there is clear community support for this addition and I don't think it is appropriate for us to block community consensus without some very good reason. There is no evidence of sockpuppetry, limited evidence for non-contributors voting, and no indication that the rights will be abused. I know it's hard for us to "take control" once there is a local 'crat, but at this point I just don't see how we can continue to ignore this request. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
      Done I do not think that there is any other option left in this situation. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I thank all participants of this discussion and take this opportunity to wish to address: @M7 all the voices of our community, are proof that I have not let you down. @MarcoAurelio your decision It helped the project get a powerful robotic support and this is one of the reasons for community support. @Ajraddatz thanks to your support, Today our community is happy, and hope that this tool will benefit our project. @Ruslik I will try to do so in the future you will not regret about his decision today. Once again thank you all for participating. Sincerely,--AryanSogd (t) 12:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


Elected as Burocreat Sciking (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just two votes? I do not see a sufficient consensus. Ruslik (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that is a very small community and the actually active users who participate to the community life in this period are just five, two of them voted in favour, one of them forgot to vote but after the term expired said that he also is in favour. Another one of the five users never participated to decision taking discussions, and the last of the five is the same cadidate that didn't want to vote for himself. --Ninonino (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Then the wiki is too small to have local 'crats. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, we were not aware of this rule, where is it published and where have this rule been discussed and approved? Again, I am a burocrat of since 2012: if this is the rule, I am abusively covering this role, should I be removed then? --Ninonino (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry current active bureaucrats will hold their position until resignation/inactivity/etc. anyway I didn't put {{not done}} because some other fellow steward might want to review the situation since already has/had 'crats. --Vituzzu (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. --Ninonino (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There isn't enough of a community to warrant local 'crats IMO. That said, Ninonino could just make the user a bureaucrat as a local 'crat. Given the active bureaucrats on the project I don't think it's our role to act in this case either way. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Marking as not done since project has two active crats. ~ Nahid Talk 02:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser access


Please, extend for more one year the term of Érico as checkuser on Portugese Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Biólogo 32 What's up? 03:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done - no action needed. We don't need to physically turn on and off the bit; the current CheckUser policy does not recognize temporary access, so the community can just ask for the rights to be removed at the expiry of the term. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


W.CC was voted and fulfill the required conditions of local policy for checkuser on Japanese Wikipedia (diff). Thanks,--Infinite0694 (Talk) 11:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

on hold until the agreement is signed. ~ Nahid Talk 11:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Signed thus done. @Trijnstel: could you take care the rest? ~ Nahid Talk 13:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  Doing... let's hope he speaks a bit English... Trijnsteltalk 14:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yep, he does.     Done Trijnsteltalk 21:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Oversight access


As local Crat, I would like you to give Oversight access to Huji per clear consensus in fawiki, He has been already identified to foundation Mardetanha talk 06:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


José Luiz talk 01:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of access

John F. Lewis@Wikidata

Per policy. Less than five administrator actions during last six months. --Stryn (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for their service. RadiX 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Per policy. Less than five administrator actions during last six months. --Stryn (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for their service. RadiX 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Per policy. Less than five administrator actions during last six months. --Stryn (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for their service. RadiX 12:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Annual administrator confirmation not successful. Please remove admin bit. Thanks, Hesperian 02:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. -- Mentifisto 03:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

AWang (WMF)@meta

Temporary adminship expired. —MarcoAurelio 22:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for their work. Linedwell (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

ZMcCune (WMF)@meta

Temporary adminship expired. —MarcoAurelio 22:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done, thanks for their work. Linedwell (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Please remove this inactive administrator with unanimous support to de-flag.Jusjih (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lord Mota@pt.wikipedia

User requested removal of his all rights. The administrator access has already been removed locally. Please remove his checkuser rights too. Best regards! Biólogo 32 What's up? 03:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser flag has been removed, @Trijnstel and Barras:, could you please proceed with the mlist/irc access? einsbor talk 07:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  Done -Barras talk 08:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


Due to our policy, I hereby request removal of administrator access due to lack of administrative actions during a 1 year period. The user has been notified ( PG (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I sent the e-mail with a one-day delay (admin has to be informed by e-mail two weeks earlier), so please put this request on hold until tomorrow, 23:30 UTC. If Jotempe does not perform any action before this time, admin's rights can be removed. Openbk (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
On hold for 24 hours. ~ Nahid Talk 20:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
He was notified Feb, 22 at 5:54 pm UTC. The 2-week period expired today, at 5:54 pm UTC. @Openbk: why this request should be put on hold until 1. tomorrow 2. almost midnight? Tar Lócesilion (queta) 22:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  Done Thanks for their service. ~ Nahid Talk 23:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Chris 73, EVula, Zolo @ Wikimedia Commons

Due to our inactivity policy (criterion #2), I hereby request the removal of administrator rights from the three aforementioned users. They have all been listed in the current inactivity run and failed to confirm their will to retain the rights in question (see statistics confirming their inactivity). Please kindly confirm removal of user privileges on this page. Thank you! odder (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done all, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Cecil @ Wikimedia Commons

Similarly to the three requests above, please kindly remove both administrator and bureaucrat privileges from the Commons account of Cecil. She has also been listed in the current inactivity run and failed to confirm the will to retain her admin and bureaucrat rights (see statistics confirming her inactivity). Thanks again! odder (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for her service. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your swift action, @Ajraddatz, appreciated. odder (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


--Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for your service. :) RadiX 01:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Qarakesek @ kk.wikipedia

Please kindly remove bureaucrat privileges from the Kazakh Wikipedia account of Qarakesek. Link to the discussion is provided above. Such decision has been raised and put into discussion due to inactivity of the user for a long time. Thanks. (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remove his sysop rights per the local inactivity policy, more than a year without syops action.--Ранко Николић (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for their service. ~ Nahid Talk 00:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

All bureaucrats@zhwikibooks

After more than a week with no opposition, please zero the bureaucrats but keep both users as administrators and importers and thank for their positive works. Our wiki is too small to have bureaucrats. Thanks.Jusjih (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I see one of the bureaucrats commenting "It doesn't make sense at all", and you the only one supporting your own proposal. That isn't consensus to enact. Please gain real local consensus before requesting rights removal. Savhñ 11:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tulsi Bhagat@maiwiki

Anyone plz! remove my sysop flag from maiwiki. I don't need it anymore longer. Thanks, --TBhagat (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  On hold 1 day per standard practice. Linedwell (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Linedwell: It's not needed to be hold on. I'm fully sure to remove this. Please! remove it. Thanks, TBhagat (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
As you want.   Done. Linedwell (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Tulsi Bhagat@global

I don't need this any longer. Thanks, TBhagat (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done. --Stryn (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
@Stryn: First sorry! Because of retire, I don't need this any longer but I want to back to my works. So, I need this flag. May i get this flag back? Regards, TBhagat (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Tulsi Bhagat: please request it back in the appropriate section at Steward_requests/Global_permissions#Requests_for_global_IP_block_exemption. --Stryn (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Please remove sysop rights, both per local community vote and MaryankoD's statement that he does not need these rights at the moment. Thank you — NickK (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for their service. ~ Nahid Talk 16:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


^musaz has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thanks. Euphydryas (msg) 22:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Trijnsteltalk 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


Please remove the sysop status from this user as per local de-sysop policy for inactivity. This user are inactive over 3 months.rxy (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, with thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


We have decided to remove Dakrismeno from administrator and bureaucrat due for inactivity Sciking (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done Ruslik (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User Pajz@dewiki

Group right the removal of which is requested: administrator. Thanks, — Pajz (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

On hold for 24 hours, as per standard practice. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if confirmation is required, but, at any rate, I stand by my request (@Ajraddatz). — Pajz (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  Erl., Danke für Ihre Arbeit. Gruβen. —MarcoAurelio 11:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Please, remove oversight access from Biologo32. According to local policy, both oversighters and checkusers should be confirmed through a vote every once a year; otherwise they will have their access removed. Biologo32 told me a week ago that he is not interested in keeping this permission for another term. Thanks in advance, RadiX 00:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done, —MarcoAurelio 11:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


Please, remove temporary sysops rights from BetaBot expired since March 18 (discussion). See also the local policy about Temporary administrators. Thanks. SleaY (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  Done. RadiX 04:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)


I request for a new term od adminship. I have left a notice on February 20. --Janezdrilc (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  In progress... until February 27, pending comments to notice. -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-03-01. --MF-W 00:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Janezdrilc (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

removed masti <talk> 20:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Please extend my sysop rights in this project as there's no other sysop here. Thank you. Best, 👦 Rachmat · b 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  On hold until tomorrow to allow a full week. Discussion started 22-08. —MarcoAurelio 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-02-29. —MarcoAurelio 16:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
removed. Matanya (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ле Лой global IPBE

removed --Stryn (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


This RfA which has passed 2 weeks thanks --Florence (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-02-29. per community consensus, Adminship granted for 6 month, will expire on 2016-02-39 Mardetanha talk
removed --Stryn (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Anne-Sophie Ofrim@nowikibooks

I would like to apply for adminship on the Norwegian Wikibooks. There are no sysops or bureaucrats at the project; the last 4 sysops and 1 bureaucrat were active in 2007, 2009 and 2010. There are a lot of pages and some files that have to be deleted at the project and other technical maintenance work.

I am an experienced user and have been sysop at nowiki since 2010 and at nnwiki since 2013, but I only have 934 edits at wikibooks. I was a temporary admin at Wikibooks from 20 November 2012 till 20. february 2013 - my request from 2012 - a period I used for cleanup and maintenance work.

The community of Wikibooks is very small, but I have postet an announcement at the Samfunnshuset (Village pump) today to inform the community about this request. Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

On hold till 30 November 2015 (minimum 1 week for discussion). --Stryn (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-02-30. --Stryn (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
March 1 of course, hah... --Stryn (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


My 6-months adminship has expired, I noticed, therefore I would like to ask for a new adminship so that I can improve this wikipedia which used to be terrible, but starts to get better. Bokareis (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  On hold until 03.09.2015 to allow a full week of discussion since you posted today your request. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 08:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-03-03. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 13:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


(psWp is expanding and it needs an admin that knows the native language and solve the issues that can only be solved by someone who know the language. Global sysops have problems of understanding the discussions that take place in native language. There are some users that are not familiar to communicate in english language thus it is the urgent need of Pashto wiki. Since I have expierence of 10 years working in different aspects of Pashto wiki and there are users who support me therefore I nominate myself and assign a nomination page where users will vote. For further details see the link in discussion) ANBI (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  On hold till 14 November 2015. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Have the issues from april been worked out? Have the needed community processes been established?-- 23:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ That issue which was raised by two users and resulted in the removal of all the sysops and bureaucrats has nothing to do with me. I have previously mentioned that I was not involved in any of that problems. --ANBI (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We are ready to give you a temporal adminship for three months as the first step. We will monitor your actions. Ruslik (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I accept your offer of 3 months adminship. --ANBI (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ruslik I am applying for permanent sysop status for Pashto wiki. I don't know why you still don't have any record of my previous actions. So far there is not any of my actions that is against the Wikimedia/Meta wiki/Wikipedia regulations. I have been a sysop and bureaucrat in Pashto wiki before. Please look at the history of my contribution and my participation in Pashto Wikipedia. Also I don't know on what basis you provide me with a temporary sysop and on what grounds do you monitor my actions and how well are you familiar of the language (Pashto) so that you can understand the justification behind my action. --ANBI (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
We are granting temporary adminship, there is no discussion about that - we need to monitor your use of the tools because it has been shown previously that the adminship team could not function properly and individually. Since it is us who grant you these rights, we ask you to justify any controversial action in English should there be any discussion here. If we don't understand your action, and if you seem unwilling to justify it appropiately, we will likely see no reason to keep entrusting you with sysopship. Please be assured we act in what we believe to be the interest of the project - as we also did when removing all sysops on this project. Regarding you specifically, and since maybe on hindsight you are able to provide a deeper response, could you explain how your assignment of rights to Khangul (who, if I understand correctly, seems to be related to you) is not an action of meatpuppetry/Conflict of interest? Would you now, if you had the same access, act as you did then? Savhñ 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Reading "Those of you WHO oppose my nomination and vote against me please provide your reason or your votes will be removed from my nomination page. Thank you. --ANBI (خبرې اترې) 19:44, 10 نومبر 2015 (UTC)" I believe we cannot trust you as an admin on this project. Wikipedia strives at a transparent and open process, and oppose votes without motivation can simply not be removed because of that. Savhñ 01:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Savhñ We have discussed this issue in emails and I disagree with your judgement that you have mentioned about my attitude towards other users. What you perceive from my written words is not the same as I do. There is the cultural and language difference that can make misunderstandings. English is not my first language and it is hard for me to make you understand what I mean. I think we have discussed the issues in email and for my last email I have not received any answers from you. Cheers --ANBI (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-07. Ruslik (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Both removed. Matanya (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

عثمان منصور انصاري@psWP

PsWp need a local admin, please give him admin rights UsmanKhan (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  On hold till 5 November 2015. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder did عثمان منصور انصاري ever accept the request? --Stryn (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I accept the request and it's urgent need of ps wiki.--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Have the issues from april been worked out? Have the needed community processes been established? Savhñ 10:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I would say "Yes" , Because before election of Admins or any other matter, We start voting process and all members of community are invited to participate in voting process--UsmanKhan (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
We are ready to give you an adminship for three months as the first step. We will monitor your actions. Ruslik (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-07. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Ruslik! Thanks from your trust. --عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
removed by Matanya on 7 March 2016. --Stryn (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


I request you to grant me sysop right for 3 more months. Thanks. Gitartha.bordoloi (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  On hold until 15 Dec - Taketa (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-15. As requested —MarcoAurelio 07:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
removed --Stryn (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Satdeep Gill@pawikibooks

There is no community as of now. I would like to have 6 month temporary adminship to start working on this project. A lot of entries are required to be deleted as well.Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Support --Ochilov (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Satdeep Gill:, please make a local announcement in the VP or related page and provide a link here, after a week if there are no opposes we will proceed with granting temp sysop--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
@Shanmugamp7: Hi, I have made a local announcement in the VP.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  On hold until December 23rd--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
@Shanmugamp7: Just wanted to remind you that it is 23rd today.--Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-23. -- Shanmugamp7 (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
expired Ajraddatz (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This section is under March of 15th but shanmugamp7's note says, it will be expired on March 23rd. Confused, ~ Nahid Talk 14:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ajraddatz and NahidSultan: Yep. It should've been expired on 23 March. SteinsplitterBot (also @Steinsplitter:) did something strange here. --Stryn (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Oh well, restored for now. Good catch guys. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


There are no bureaucrats at the Haitian Wikipedia, so I'm bring this successful RFA here. There is 100% support for User:WhisperToMe at this tiny community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-23. Taketa (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-03-24. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Import permission DerFussi@vi.wikivoyage

I am importer (including XML-import) on de/wikivoyage already and yould like to setup some of our features on vi. So i would like to apply for the import permission:

  • XML import (I have quite a lot of modules and templates)
  • transwiki import - sources: Wikipedia/vi for importing (articles on request) and Wikivoyage/de and Wikivoyage/en (for importing articles or other templates)

I am aware that there is a not big community, only one active member, a Vietnamese that fortunately speaks German as well. He helps with the features and translations. -- DerFussi 05:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you think you'll need it permanently? --MF-W 20:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Not easy to predict. Of course, there are many uploads at the beginning. But on voy/de we still use both imports and will have to use in the future ase well. Not often, but we use it. -- DerFussi 04:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-03-24. 6 months should give you enough time :). Let us know if you need less/more time with it. Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 07:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
removed Ajraddatz (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


I do not think that I will get any comments in the discussion because there were no edits in this wiki for a half of the year. The discussion is started on the 19th of December. Ochilov (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
And note that I am requesting not the temporary one, because the process of renewing the adminship is always not easy. And it might happen that I get important work to do and I do not have rights... --Ochilov (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  On hold until 26 Dec. Permanent adminship is only given if there is an active local community and multiple admins. When there is no local community temporary adminship is granted, which ensures there is a system of feedback. All the best, Taketa (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay) --Ochilov (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-26. - If you want to prolong this in March, you can post a new request on eo.wikiquote and here. All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
removed on January 2016 per Special:Permalink/15204574. --Stryn (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Shmakov@ru.wikibooks

I’m not the only (and not even the most active) administrator at Russian Wikibooks these days. Still, I believe my involvement there in this capacity is beneficial to the project, so I hereby request that my privileges be prolonged for another 12 months. TIA. — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 06:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  In progress... till 26 March 2015. einsbor talk 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-03-27. -- Jusjih (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
removed Matanya (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


I request 6 month temporary adminship for him. Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-03-27. --MF-W 13:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
removed Matanya (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

He is nominated as sysop on gujarati wikipedia.- YmKavishwar (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-03-27. --MF-W 13:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
removed Matanya (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Bhatakati aatma@gu.wikiquote

I want to edit interface, sometime delete unusul pages, anty vandal activity, import useful article, template, module, mediawiki pages, gadget and development of our project. Now no any admin here. Local Announcement is here.
Thanks in advance.--Bhatakati aatma (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  On hold till 28 December for local discussion. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually there is no one edit in many year. Only global sysop activities. Currently m only one local active user so i dn't think any comment on RFA local discussion. Today i have don new main page in this community. A requast to no need holding and if possible grant this right permeability or long time period. Thanks.--Bhatakati aatma (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-03-27. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. --MF-W 16:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

removed Matanya (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


(This is an emergency, because in, managers is not active,and I want to be bureaucrats in and fix it.)

Thanks Very much Arifys 13:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is a local discussion? Ruslik (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
(Clerk note) Moving this from bureaucrat to admin, per the nature of the local discussion.
Arifys, biasanya butuh waktu diskusi minimal seminggu baru akan diangkat. Ditunggu ya. On hold until Dec 20, 2015 Bennylin 04:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-06-20. - Most voters do not have edits on I see one current editor and one who came back after 7 years inactive. The rest is from I am not comfortable granting permanent adminship based on this. For now I have given temporary adminship for 6 months. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For when this temporary adminship expires or is removed - Given the bad use of the admin tools, specially when it comes with the block tool (cfr. first, second), I advice against granting this user any administrator status in the future. —MarcoAurelio 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: user has been emergency desysopped today by Vito due to abuse of the tools. —MarcoAurelio 16:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed today by Vito due to abuse of the tools. —MarcoAurelio 16:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


(This is an emergency, because in, managers is not active,and I want to be bureaucrats in and fix it.)

Thanks Very much Arifys 13:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Where is a local discussion? Ruslik (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
(Clerk note) Moving this from bureaucrat to admin, per the nature of the local discussion.
Arifys, biasanya butuh waktu diskusi minimal seminggu baru akan diangkat. Ditunggu ya. On hold until Dec 20, 2015 Bennylin 04:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-06-20. - Most voters do not have edits on I see one current editor and one who came back after 7 years inactive. The rest is from I am not comfortable granting permanent adminship based on this. For now I have given temporary adminship for 6 months. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For when this temporary adminship expires or is removed - Given the bad use of the admin tools, specially when it comes with the block tool (cfr. first, second), I advice against granting this user any administrator status in the future. —MarcoAurelio 14:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: user has been emergency desysopped today by Vito due to abuse of the tools. —MarcoAurelio 16:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Removed today by Vito due to abuse of the tools. —MarcoAurelio 16:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Expiring: 20 June 2016

Miscellaneous requests

User Ankry@plwikisource

Ankry emailed me to let me know we had not removed his temporary importupload permission, but that he still found it useful. I propose extending the temporary permission another year. MBisanz talk 22:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I confirm. Ankry (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is there something which speaks against making a local request? --MF-W 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday I started a MediaWiki configuration change request discussion there concerning interwiki import. If the change is accepted by devs, my import rights will not be needed any more. I think, starting another discussion about interwiki importing at the moment would be misleading to other users. I will start such discussion if devs reject the proposed configuration change (I expect a decission in 1-2 weeks). Ankry (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Very good, I think this can be on hold until then? (As I think nobody will want to remove your rights now). --MF-W 20:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
OK :) Ankry (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
On hold until the said discussion (above) is over. ~ Nahid Talk 12:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Interwiki import configuration change for plwikisource was implemented tonight. Please revoke my import rights as no longer needed. Ankry (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Let us know if you need them again :) Ajraddatz (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


I am here to request for importer right. Zhwp currently have some backlog of Afd needing to be imported to wikt. I am quite active in Zhwp and I'd like to give a hand. Thanks in advanced. Stang 11:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  On hold until 19 March. ~ Nahid Talk 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It is better to define import sources and to use transwiki right. Ruslik (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it is already set up, so transwiki importer can be assigned instead. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Stang: Granted the transwiki right, which should be enough. Let me know if you need the xml upload access as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and I think transwiki is enough. --Stang 09:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Macreanu Iulian@ro.wikipedia

Hello, Macreanu Iulian is on ro.wikipedia responsible for promoting quality articles (en.wikipedia equivalent:Featured articles) (from april 22, 2013) and he asked for the right to promote good articles too. On ro.wikipedia, the local policy requires a bureaucrat to close the discussion, and we have no bureaucrat. The discussion for the investiture was started on January 23, 2016 and all the participants agreed to grant the right. Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please translate my statement into ro as needed. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll translate it.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


As well as above.--Stang 07:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Zh.wikibooks has an active bureaucrat. Please approach him instead. Savhñ 10:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Bureaucrats can't add/remove importer or transwiki rights, which is what he is asking for here. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Woops, sorry - I should have noticed. Savhñ 08:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Stang 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


@和平奮鬥救地球:This user is a sysop in Chinese Wikipedia, and he is willing to dealing with the backlog of Afd. Per local discussion, there is no oppose for more than one month. Please gain him transwiki right. Thanks in advanced. Stang 08:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~ Nahid Talk 12:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 Thank you very much!- Earth Saver (talk) at 01:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User Aydinsalis@azwiki

(Those who start discussion about administrators' actions and who express negative views about their actions are being blocked In the last few days there have been 3 blocks ([5], [6], [7],). like that.Those who organised the discussion are being blocked without time limits. In addition to that, those who participated in the discussion are being blocked without time limits as well ( User:Cekli829: " Hesab edirəm ki, müddətli bloklanan qərəzçilərin blok müddətinin müddətsiz blokla dəyişdirilməsi ilə bağlı da konkret fəaliyət ortaya qoymalıyıq."; User:Sortilegus: " Bu məsələnin təşkilatçıları da təbii ki, bloklanacaqlar, çoxu onsuz da dediyim kimi blokludurlar.. ). Aydinsalis (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you want from us? Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Those sysops who disrupt the work in az.wikipedia, who is busy with inequitable edits, who does vandalism and brakes rules should be subjected to temporal or non-temporal blocks. There should be a referendum held on sysops' credibility and it should be made clear to the admins that they shouldn't do anything to prevent this referendum. Aydinsalis (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Start another RFC I suppose. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
For example? What they have: On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia (2016), Sysop abuse on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia (2015). Would you solve the problem? --Aydinsalis (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Invalid request thus marking as   Not done. The situation sholud be handled either in local wiki or through meta RFC if appropriate. ~ Nahid Talk 16:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)