Steward requests/Permissions/2016-02

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator access

Dan Mihai Pitea@ro.wikipedia

The following request is closed Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I consider that a decision should be made for above listed discussion. The discussion started on January 15, 2016. Thanks, --Silenzio76 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are some very problematic behavioural aspects with this candidate. I have noticed them there and I also mention them here. The problematic aspects are about a previous verbal agressivity amounting to personal attacks of other users and a strong tendency to label editors with whom he disagrees. Also, some tendency to own articles has been mentioned there. He also speaks about a supposed false topic, sensitive to Wikimedia Foundation. These traits are not to be seen on a future sysop.-- 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I advise the steward to ignore the message above for many reasons: the user has no right to vote, any comments related to this topic should be placed at w:ro:Wikipedia:Candidați/Administrator/Dan Mihai Pitea (2), and there are strong reasons to believe that behind this IP address is an user whom already expressed his vote. Best regards, --Silenzio76 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is to close as successful. 15 pro, 3 against. That makes more than 80% support, more than the widely required 75% of support required for promotions. —MarcoAurelio 14:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rules @ro.wp are quite different: "Un birocrat evaluează discuția și decide dacă s-a ajuns la consens. Consens nu înseamnă nici unanimitate, nici majoritate; sunt ignorate opiniile care nu se bazează pe argumente rezonabile. Birocratul trebuie să poată justifica decizia pe care a luat-o și, dacă a ignorat una sau mai multe opinii, să explice de ce." I'm not gonna translate it myself, Google does a pretty good job.
Basically, the task of the person closing the discussion is to see if the negative points raised during the discussion are substantial enough to prevent the promotion. CLosing based on votes alone will most likely raise a chorus of protests.--Strainu (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This policy of ro:wp attempted to refute mockery voting. But bureaucrats, citing the idea that they are best judge, behaved like dictators. It proved once again that dictatorship is worse than democracy. This is why we do not have bureaucrats at ro:wp, and I no longer support this policy. --Turbojet (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Strainu:, but there are no bureaucrats at ro.wp. When the community decided to go without bureaucrats, it also decided to go with the stewards' judgement and with their methods of evaluating consensus. I also think the 75% rule of thumb works well with identifying consensus on ro.wp. If the opposing minority had brought serious arguments against the proposal, then they would probably have convinced enough people to change their votes to oppose. If you look at the ro.wp sysop candidacy history, you'll see how it actually fits. The closest proposal that we had to deny in the last three years had 70% support, and even seemingly close proposals that have been accepted went over 75%.Andrei Stroe (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now there are 16 votes pro and 2 against. --Sîmbotin (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andrei, I disagree, based on Stewards_policy#Check_local_policies; we're basically in the "person in charge decides" case described at en.wp, with the added complication that he has to justify the decision. Also, historically, bureaucrats have taken into account all opinions, even if not expressed as votes.--Strainu (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you can't expect stewards to really fullfil that when none of us speak Romanian... Our understanding of those discussions will be limited by automatic translations, which are not 100% reliable. While we will try to comply with it, I feel you're putting excessive burden on us asking us to behave like if we were local community members that understand the language, knows the community problems, etc. and thus can make informed decisions. Inevitably, we will have to rely on votes IMHO. What do other stewards think? —MarcoAurelio 18:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarcoAurelio: If you think it would really help, I can translate the whole discussion. --Wintereu 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't expect you to behave like you're local community members, quite the contrary actually. By not being involved, I would expect it to be easier for you to pick the few important arguments and ignore the noise.
Anyway, if you decide internally that this is too much of a burden, please announce it officialy at the village pump, so we can at least modify the rules for future candidates. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Thanks all for the explanations. We will be looking now to close the discussion accordingly. A decision should arrive soon I hope. Does local policy allows to close the vote pending a decision? Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 11:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were already explained that we're not voting on ro.wikipedia when it comes to adminship. Also, until the discussion is officially closed (with the conclusion), eligible users can still express their opinion. Regards, Wintereu 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no need to be bossy, and certainly I'd expect that you understand that I don't speak English, so if my meaning is unclear please ask before complaining. It has been clear to all of us that there's no voting in rowp, otherwise this issue would have been resolved long ago. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done - Adminship granted. Having reviewed the arguments against the candidate, we find them not strong enough to prevent promotion. Among those arguments, there's an unproven accusation of sockpuppetry and a descend of the number of visits and lack of NPV. As for the first one, I can't find any proofs, not any direct request to compare the candidate with other accounts that are suspected to be operated by the same user. Also, CheckUser is not for fishing, and we can't simply go checking "just in case" the candidate has used multiple accounts, which are not forbidden unless they're used to damage, sabotage or deceive the project or its community. When and if you have such evidence, then we can talk. As for the second one, certainly being an administrator is not the reason for the decrease of the number of reasons of a project. Respect to the NPV policies is a local matter, that has to be enforced locally. We can't also ignore that the candidate has more than 80% of support at this moment, and that if the arguments against were so strong to prevent promotion they could have convinced others to vote the same way or remove their support vote. Discussion closed, promotion enacted. —MarcoAurelio 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This requests is domain adminship to Boxstools @ady.wikipedia as per consensus. Boxstools (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please start a local discussion, and wait at least 1 week to allow any local community members to comment. I would also recommend getting a bit more experience on that project in particular, but also on Wikimedia in general, before becoming an admin there. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or did you, Boxstools, previously use a different account? --MF-W 18:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archive accounts. domain wikimedia. --Boxstools (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MF-W, I believe, they're just exploring the projects. ~ Nahid Talk 05:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done, per above. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Исмаил Садуев@ce.wikipedia

Make me the administrator of the Chechen Wikipedia.--Исмаил Садуев (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Спасибо большое! --Дагиров Умар (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I already obtained a temporary approval for 3 months. I'm making some admin tasks including deletes that have been waiting for years. As mentioned in the previous discussion initiated by @Meno25: no admin is active there. Permanent admin rights will help me to fight vandalism and invite more wikipedians to edit in wikibooks.Helmoony (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Helmoony: The Arabic Wikibooks community is small to elect a permanent administrator. So, I believe that (periodically renewable) temporary adminship is enough right now. --Meno25 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X mark.svg Not done, as Meno25 said. Please ask for extension (on local community) before than your rights will expire on April. --Stryn (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Meno25: @Stryn:. I put a request in the local village pump although even for the first request made there none of the admins replied or even edited something in wikibooks. --Helmoony (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bureaucrat access


This requests is bureaucrat and domain wikis. --Boxstools (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done, per above sysop request. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm nominated as a bureaucrat on it.Wikiversity. --Hippias (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without any current administrators on the project (and with only temporary administrators in the project's recent history), it does not seem appropriate to promote a bureaucrat on this project. Snowolf How can I help? 17:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but as a matter of practice bureaucrats are not appointed on projects with no (or few) permanent admins. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User WikiBronze@tr.wikimedia

HakanIST (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, rights of chapter wiki are handled by chapter's committee themselves (or on their request). Furthermore, there are currently two bureaucrats exists on that wiki, please ask them to assign the right. ~ Nahid Talk 14:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CheckUser access


Максим Підліснюк (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold until confirmation of signature announced at IN. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 22:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see diff --Максим Підліснюк (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done. Trijnsteltalk 00:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marcelo Victor@pt.wikipedia

Marcelo Victor has been elected as a checkuser on ptwiki for an one-year term. He has already signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (check here). Thanks in advance. RadiX 04:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. Barras can you handle the other stuff as well? —MarcoAurelio 18:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol wait.svg Doing... -Barras talk 18:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oversight access


Thanks in advance. Courcelles 23:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that Floq will need to sign the updated access to private information policies before the bit is restored. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll tell him on his enwp talk page. Courcelles 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
done. Courcelles 00:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waiting on @Jalexander-WMF:. -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not in a rush or anything, but just to make sure no one thinks they're waiting on me: I signed the OS and OTRS policies a couple of days ago. At least I think I did; if I did something wrong (the instructions were kind of confusing), please let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Floquenbeam. Since your name does not appear yet on this page we can't grant you the rights. We can't see either if you signed the documents on Legalpad either. Can you please (just to confirm) visit again Phabricator and check if you signed the documents? If so, we should wait until your name is posted on that board. They're usually quick doing so, though; so I'm not sure if there are hollydays in the office, etc. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 19:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marco, no worries, I understand you can't take my word for it. I've survived without the OS bit for a year and a half, I'm not worried about another few days. I just wanted to be clear that the next step is Jalexander's (or approved equal), not mine. Phabricator is not user friendly for people unfamiliar with the interface, so it took quite a while, but I eventually found a page that confirms I've signed both "L32 OTRS Users Confidentiality Agreement - Nonpublic Information (English)" and "L4 General Confidentiality Agreement - Nonpublic Information (English)". I'll be patient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is. You'll be added to the noticeboard linked above, and at that time we'll turn on the flag for you. No further action by you required :) Ajraddatz (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, as the candidate has now been added to the noticeboard. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This you requests oversight rights. Boxstools (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X mark.svg Not done - Not elected. —MarcoAurelio 14:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This you requests oversight rights. --Boxstools (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X mark.svg Not done - You've not been elected as oversighter on Meta. —MarcoAurelio 14:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Requests oversights rights. OrangeWikia1 (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X mark.svg Not done. Not elected. -- Tegel (Talk) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Per local consensus, please grant -jem- oversight access. Confidentiality agreement will be signed as soon as possible. Matiia (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold. Pending signature of the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. RadiX 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Already signed in Phabricator, waiting for processing and Noticeboard confirmation. Thanks in advance. -jem- (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of access


Yes check.svg Done, I've removed admin flag only. einsbor talk 17:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Einsbor: Please restore the flag, January's inactivity check has already taken place, so this removal is not in line with local policy. --Vogone (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vogone and Einsbor: Moot point now that it's actually the first of February.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geo Swan@en.wikisource

Geo Swan's annual admin confirmation was unsuccessful. Please remove administrator rights. Thanks, Hesperian 03:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done with thanks to the user for his past service. RadiX 05:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SVWP uses annual re-election and this user choose to not run for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done with thanks to the user for his past service. RadiX 04:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SVWP uses annual re-election and this user was not nominated for another period. /Hangsna (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done with thanks to the user for his past service. RadiX 04:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


SVWP uses annual re-election and this user was not nominated for another period. Removal should be both admin and oversight rights. /Hangsna (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done with thanks to the user for his past service. RadiX 04:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Users who did not sign confidentiality agreement

Status:    Done

For the record: I sent an email about this to the stewards mailing list and listing here for the record and for tracking purposes. These are users who have not signed the Confidentiality agreement required by the new Access to nonpublic information policy and are, therefore, no longer eligible to hold Checkuser or Oversight rights. There are a couple people who I have asked the Stewards to wait briefly while I try to work on them. Jalexander--WMF 02:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Five requests on hold. The rest was done by Jyothis. - Taketa (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that when the rights from Bawolff (enwikinews OS), Kamix (fawiki OS) and พุทธามาตย์ (thwiki CU) are removed, the following rights also need to be removed until a new CU/OS has been elected or until the aforementioned users signed the confidentiality agreement:
*ظهیری (talkeditslogsUserRightsactivityCentralAuthemailverify 2FA) (oversight)
There always need to be at least two checkusers and/or oversighters for mutual accountability per CU/OS policy. Trijnsteltalk 12:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello all. I was so busy recently. I have signed the both agreements.--Avocato (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello. Waiting for @Jalexander-WMF: to give us the green light. —MarcoAurelio 23:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aye, Avocato has signed and can be left. พุทธามาตย์ can be removed, I'm going to email Bináris2 one more time. Jalexander--WMF 07:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have removed พุทธามาตย์'s right and also those of Octahedron80, who was the only remaining checkuser on th.wikipedia. Taketa (talk) 08:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi. I did not sign because of workload. Sorry. What can I do to sign? Sadrettin (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • [4] I have restored checkuser for Sadrettin on tr.wikipedia. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram-voting question.svg Progress report? Can this be closed? —MarcoAurelio 21:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF: Taketa (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF: Repinging. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jalexander-WMF: Repinging. MBisanz talk 17:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, just close it for now, I still need to deal with Bináris2 but too much other stuff has been conspiring against. I'll open a new request if something needs to happen there. Jalexander--WMF 23:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accipiter Q. Gentilis@ro.wikipedia

Please remove my sysop rights. Thank you Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold for 24 hours, as SOP for self-requests. Also, you've been granted the rights some weeks ago. Are you sure this is not a "ragequit" (as they're used to be called)? —MarcoAurelio 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your question, but I really think that Wikipedia it's not the End of the World. I'm just a little sad, due to my imprudence. I got into something who really does not match with me. Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MarcoAurelio:, I suggest to put this request on hold for more than 24 hours. Accipiter at the beginning of his new role really got in a difficult situation with a difficult user. I think this is just an overreaction and may go away in couple of days. Regards,--Silenzio76 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was really surprised by a significant number of encouragements by e-mail. Some of its contain completely valid arguments, so I decided to withdraw my request for revocation of sysop rights.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X mark.svg Not done then. —MarcoAurelio 17:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your patience.--Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am the difficult user with whom Accipiter Q. Gentilis got in a difficult situation. I am an old wikipedian (started contributing in 2006), I was almost inactive at Wikipedia after 2008 because of harassment (attempted outing), I made a return at Wikipedia in 2015 to oppose the deletion of an article and Accipiter Q. Gentilis made attemped outing against me again. This is why I made a complaint. There were no edit wars at Romanian Wikipedia with my involvement, in order to justify the attempted outing. It was only the fact that I expressed opinions in a deletion debate and I opposed some admin nominations. In my opinion, somebody involved in attempted outing should not be admin at Wikipedia, but I know that at Romanian Wikipedia the community consider attempted outing as acceptable. I am the bad guy of Romanian Wikipedia because I complained against attempted outing. More details in the checkuser request I make regarding Acipiter Q. Gentilis, as I suspect him of using sockpuppets [5]. There is also a checkuser request regarding me and I already agreed with it [6].--MariusM (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Please remove my sysop flag at sv.wiktionary. I was just there temporarily to update old JavaScript, so you don't need to wait 24h. Thank you. Nirmos (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. RadiX 14:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. This user is inactive last 1 year and in his latest edit January 7th, 2015 he noted that he leaves Wikipedia. Thanks.--Wertuose (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but if the user has not clearly said he's resigning and there's no local policy or community decission allowing us to do this, the retirement of an editor is not a cause to remove someone's rights. Nonetheless, if the editor does not return, AAR will be triggered and rights will be removed. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please remove my patroller, template editor and autopatrolled rights on ro.wikipedia. Thanks. --XXN (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions To handling steward: these are local rights, you'll need to add yourself to the local steward group and perform the action at rowp's userrights. —MarcoAurelio 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done - Taketa (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wtf? There were plenty of local admins to do so, nor were any advanced rights resigned. --Vogone (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Local admins should have done this action. I was aware of the recent resignation of all bureaucrats from this wiki and made a wrong assumption based on the userright tool and advice above. I should have double checked. My mistake. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can assume that the user preferred a more "silently" removal of the respective rights, instead of asking a local admin to do so. Otherwise, it's sad to see such an experimented user like XXN doing this. --Wintereu 22:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Taketa & Vogone: The patroller status can actually only be removed by bureaucrats at ro.wikipedia (and we don't have any at this moment). --Mihai P. (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All admins can remove these rights using ro:special:userrights. You can see what admins can do at ro:Special:Listă drepturi grup. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the patroller (more precise, the active patroller) status can only be granted and removed by bureaucrats. Admins can only grant and remove the autopatroller (the passive patroller) status. That is exacly what is stated in the link in the row birocrați. So your intervention was necessary. Regards, --Mihai P. (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Conflict] Mihai is right that admins cannot change the "patroller" user right, only the "automatic patrol" right. These are different rights.--Strainu (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are ofcourse correct that the patroller right was correctly removed. However all three rights are seperate rights. Two of the rights could have been removed by local admins. So for those two rights, I could have left it to local admins. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seriously, I know Meta is sometimes boring, but generating this kind of drama for this is ridiculous. Patroller rights need a bureaucrat for removal, so indeed this has to be handled by us absent local bureaucrats at rowp. And advanced permissions is just what the template "on hold" adds. The other two rights could have been removed locally, indeed; and that's what was done. Please stop shooting ourselves in our feets. —MarcoAurelio 22:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Svens Welt@dewiki

According to local policy admin rights are withdrawn after one year of inactivity. He was informed three months ago. NNW (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done - Per local policy, 1 year inactive, 90 days after notification - Taketa (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Elfix has informed the French arbcom of his resignation as CU. Posted here on the French project. Please remove accordingly his CU rights. Thanks, — Racconish ☎ 12:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC) for the French arbcomReply[reply]

Done. Thanks for your work. —MarcoAurelio 12:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Per local policy Darklama's sysop rights should be removed as he is inactive for more than one year (no edits, no logged actions). One month's notice was given here and here without response. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. --Stryn (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please, remove checkuser status from account above. According to local rules, checkusers should be confirmed through a vote process in the ending of their one year term. User has been notified on his talk page a week ago and didn't create a confirmation request. Thanks.—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 02:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed rights, @Trijnstel and Barras: - could you please do the rest? einsbor talk 15:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done -Barras talk 16:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Please remove my sysop flag at sv.wikibooks. I was just there temporarily to update old JavaScript, so you don't need to wait 24h. Thank you. Nirmos (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. RadiX 22:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User kipcool@frwikisource

Please remove my sysop privileges from fr.wikisource, since I am not really active there these days. Thanks. Kipcool (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold for 24 h per standard practice. einsbor talk 15:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done. --Stryn (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sysop without activity more than 1 year, he was contacted and gave his consent for sysop status removal. Adehertogh (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. --Stryn (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please, remove my sysop rights. Not much to say except that it is not the first time that I fill this form recently. Now, however, enough is enough. I thank who will carry out the request. Buon lavoro. Harlock81 (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold until 11:01, 12 February per normal practice. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, go ahead when possible. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for your work. RadiX 14:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The project is not active anymore and the temporary access will not come in handy any way. --Doostdar (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done MBisanz talk 13:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O @ Wikimedia Commons

Due to our inactivity policy (criterion #3), I hereby request the removal of administrator rights from the account of O. They had been listed in the previous inactivity run and failed to perform the required number of admin actions over the past six months (see exact statistics). Please kindly confirm removal of user privileges on this page. Thank you! odder (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, please thank him/her for their services. —MarcoAurelio 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, @MarcoAurelio. odder (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please, remove my sysop and bureaucrat flags on es.wp. Thanks in advance. HUB (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold for the usual 24 hours, until 14 February 00:26 UTC.
Si deseas reconsiderar tu decisión, puedes hacérnoslo saber antes de mañana. Hagas lo que hagas, muchas gracias por tu labor durante estos 7 años como bibliotecario, y mis mejores deseos para el futuro. Espero que no nos abandones del todo :) Savhñ 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HUB: Una pena que te vayas. Fuimos elegidos casi al mismo tiempo. Un abrazo y espero que estés bien. —MarcoAurelio 22:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done -Barras talk 16:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Please remove my sysop flag at sv.wikiquote. I was just there temporarily to update old JavaScript, so you don't need to wait 24h. Thank you. Nirmos (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done. --Stryn (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formica rufa@it.wikipedia

I request the removal of my sysop rights. Thanks in advance for your help.--Formica rufa (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold for 24 hours. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks for your service. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matt314 @ Wikimedia Commons

Please kindly remove administrator privileges from the account of Matt314 on Commons. They requested that the flag be removed during the currently ongoing admin inactivity run. It has been over 36 hours since the request was posted, so the rights can be removed at your earliest convenience. Thank you! odder (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg DoneMarcoAurelio 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @MarcoAurelio. odder (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Per the approved inactivity criteria on Finnish Wikiquote, "Sysop status will be removed after one year of total inactivity (i.e. no edits or log actions in the last 12 months)."
For user Otrfan: last edit 1 February 2014; last log action 12 February 2014, so Otrfan has been inactive for 2 years already. --Pxos (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg DoneMarcoAurelio 19:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero 04:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Last log action more than six months ago (per cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o práva správce#Odebrání práv v případě dlouhodobé neaktivity). Please remove his sysop rights. Thank you. 14:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose to contact that admin first and ask if he needs the rights.--Juandev (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like they were contacted already 5 days ago, and they didn't respond. And what's going on at here? Per the link above "Neprovede-li správce po dobu delší než půl roku žádnou zaznamenanou akci, k níž jsou potřeba práva správce, může kdokoliv požádat stevardy, aby tomuto správci byla z důvodu neaktivity správcovská práva odebrána" --> <Google Translate> "Fails if an administrator for more than half a year, no recorded the action to which the need for administrator rights, anyone can ask the stewards to this manager was due to inactivity administrative privileges revoked." I think we are safe to remove their administrator rights. --Stryn (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stryn: Yes, you can remove their sysop rights under that policy. There is nothing important in the linked talk (just only something like 'Who is hiding behind this IP address?'). --Marek Koudelka (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I've now removed both of their rights. @Barras and Trijnstel: please remove Postrach's access to the lists and IRC channels. --Stryn (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done, thanks for the ping. -Barras talk 20:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Last log action more than six months ago (per cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o práva správce#Odebrání práv v případě dlouhodobé neaktivity). Please remove her sysop rights. Thank you. 14:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose to contact that admin first and ask if he needs the rights.--Juandev (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --Stryn (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lupo @ Wikimedia Commons

Similar to the request immediately above, could we please have admin privileges removed from Lupo's account on Commons. Lupo requested that the rights be removed during the current Commons admin inactivity run. However, could this please only be done after 06:51 UTC tomorrow (17 February) as per usual procedure to give the user 24 hours to perhaps reconsider their decision. Thanks, odder (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time2wait.svg On hold until 17-02-2016@06:51 (UTC). —MarcoAurelio 14:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg DoneMarcoAurelio 14:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, @MarcoAurelio. odder (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


please remove my sysop right. unfortunately i can't active right now. thanks :)Mahdi talk 18:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On hold for 24 hours. RadiX 18:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks for your work. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No edits since June 2, 2015 and no logged actions since July 16, 2015. Please remove sysop flag. Regards, Christian Giersing (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thank you. Savhñ 09:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No modification since 31 of March 2014 and was in a discussion about removing his admin rights... Following the local policy (fr:voy:Wikivoyage:Administrateurs#Fin_du_statut_d.27administrateur) the admin rights should be removed after 3 months of inactivity. The use was contacted by e-mail without reaction. Adehertogh (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Please, thank the user for his service on behave of the stewards. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bellayet @ Bengali Wikisource

This site has no bureaucrat. As per local policy, access removal process should be initiated if the admin is inactive for one year. Attempt should be made to contact the sysop by various means and community to decide if the sysop does not respond within six months. More than two years have elapsed since his last edit on December 22, 2013, which is more than the maximum inactivity time without community review as per global policy. User was informed on his Bengali Wikipedia talk page, where he is regularly active. He has ignored the information and has continued editing Bengali Wikipedia. So, removal of access is requested. Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global policy does not apply. AAR is reviewed one time a year and this will be checked in due time. The local inactivity process for admins on bn.wikisource seems to be added by Jayantanth last October. Was there a vote on this? If the local policy is good, then Bellayet needs to be informed 6 months before removal. In the link you provide you inform him last month. Was he informed before this? Please give a link where Bellayet was informed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Link here. Informed on January 22. No local AAR is being done. No, he was not informed before. Thanks, Hrishikes (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AAR for 2015 is being done right now. The AAR can check if he wants to stay active as admin. Otherwise according to bn.wikisource policy we would have to wait another 5 months. I suggest waiting for the AAR, or the 5 months, whichever applies first, and no further action right now. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is any local inactivity policy, AAR does not apply. --Rschen7754 18:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
X mark.svg Not done - If the local policy is valid or not, at the moment no action is needed. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 07:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Greudin is inactive on Wikibooks for more than three years: no edition & no log entry. So please remove his bureaucrat and administrator status. JackPotte (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a little hesistant. the policy was approved with the sole vote of you, and as you tell in your talk page, you are not sure why the policy was not enacted back then. This is not an outright rejection of the request though. —MarcoAurelio 16:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping@other stewards. —MarcoAurelio 12:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that an inactivity policy should be enacted by consensus rather than acclamation. No fault of the requesting user, of course; I would just prefer to see a vote with more active participation required to remove sysop rights. Otherwise, the AAR process is quite efficient at removing inactive permission holders on small projects. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Unlike requests for temprorary admin, where no opposition is considered tacit approval on small projects, a project-wide policy regarding the removal of rights needs a consensus of that project, and perhaps a minimum quorum as well. However, without a local policy the global policy should apply, and it appears tthat Greudin has not met that standard, so removal would be warranted. -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, we need to follow AAR2015; on which I'm working this year and will probably start soon sending notices to projects and users once all is set up. —MarcoAurelio 15:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When the two Czech admins were deprived of rights (above), there is another one who is inactive for a long time. He was contacted in January, when he said he 'would sometimes used it when possible.' but nothing changed: No activity since then. Last log action on 12th August 2015 (more than half a year). Marek Koudelka (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Please thank Zirland for his/her service. -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morten Haan@dewiki

Please remove the sysop rights. Morten Haan was not reelected. Itti (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Bureaucrat at dewikiReply[reply]

Yes check.svg Removed, einsbor talk 07:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please remove his admin rights at the Dutch Wikipedia. He made less than 250 edits during the last year as required by our local activity policy. See here for his edits and see here for his deleted edits. I will thank him for his services of course. Thanks in advance. Natuur12 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skeezix1000 @ Wikimedia Commons

Please kindly remove administrator privileges from the account of Skeezix1000 on Commons. They requested that the flag be removed during the currently ongoing admin inactivity run. It has been over 24 hours since the request was posted, so the rights can be removed at your earliest convenience. Thank you! odder (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. According to the local policies, Igna has not enough administrative actions to be a sysop or a 'crat on eswiki. Requerimment is 50 admin actions on past two years, and he has less than 50 actions. Please remove his both bureaucrat and administrator flags. Jmvkrecords (Intra talk) 20:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done with thanks for his work. RadiX 01:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cncs wikipedia@zh.wikipedia

Please remove the sysop bit per our inactivity removal policy. Inactive since 2015-05-19 and notified on 2016-01-22. Thanks. Jimmy Xu (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks for their service. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary permissions (expired and rejected requests only)


I have consensus to continue as administrator.
- Sarrus (ct) 09:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-02-07.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
expired and removed Ajraddatz (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed --Stryn (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please give my admin rights again. Because no "oppose" vote. --Vadgt (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's over 2 weeks left, see this. --Stryn (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stryn: this one is about due.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-02-12. -- Stryn (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed --Stryn (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm here to apply for the extension to the temporary sysop status at zh.wikiquote. This is the third term extension. J.Wong 08:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-02-16. Jusjih used to be a local crat, and it looks like he is OK with you being a permanent admin, but the community is too small for me to usually grant permanent adminship. If there are no concerns next year when you seek re-election, then I or another steward can grant permanent access. Thanks for volunteering. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.--J.Wong 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed --Stryn (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please give admin rights on Armenian Wikibooks, because no oppose vote. Vadgt (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can only give you admin rights for three months in this situation. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. --Vadgt (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-02-17. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
extendedMarcoAurelio 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pratyya contacted me over IRC, requesting me to grant him 1.5 years of temp adminship per the above discussion. I would like more eyes on this, ans I like transparency, so i am posting it here. The reason I'm posting and not Pratyya, is he will have limited access to internet until the 22nd, when his term would already expire. Please comment/execute as you see fit. best Matanya (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Username fixed. --M/ (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks fine to me. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Historically, we have not given temporary admin rights for periods of longer than one year, IIRC. -- Avi (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly already did so and also remember others doing it. I am very much in favour of giving 1,5 years of temporary adminship when someone has already had temporary adminship several times before. --MF-W 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. After an extended period of trusted service I see no reason not to extend for longer periods. However, I would set a maximum limit of 2 years, in line with the global inactivity policy limits, unless the project has its own more restrictive activity policy (unlikely I know). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I don't like the idea of the longest term. Many communities have a confirmation process, and that is from a year, and I don't think that small wikis should have a longer period than a year. It is not an onerous process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My own opinion is if the wiki isn't large or active enough for permanent admins, then a year is a reasonably long enough length of time. If the admin starts the discussion just a bit more than a week before the expiration, it can be seamless. I don't think there is anything wrong with giving rights for 18 months; i just don't see it as substantially superior to 12. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done Granted for 1 year to expire on 2016-02-23. With only around a half-dozen non-bot, non-automated editors with more than 10 edits in the past 30 days (Pratyya himself only has 3 edits in the past 30 days), I do not believe that BnWikT is ready for permanent admins at this time. Also, while this will be Pratyya's fourth go round here, it is only the second time privileges will be of duration > 6 months, so I will extend temporary admin privileges for one more year. Hopefully, by this time in 2016, the project will have grown enough so that permanent adminship may be considered. 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. -- Avi (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removed. Matanya (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would like to apply for temporary adminship for three months on the Finnish Wikiversity. There are zero active sysops, and I'd like to delete redundant pages, update the interface (system messages), fix cut-and-paste moves by merging histories, and do other administrative stuff. I have been admin on fi.wikipedia and fi.wikisource for 2–3 years now, and I was a temporary admin at fi.wiktionary in the autumn of 2014 executing a similar "tour of duty" in 3 months. The community of fi.wikiversity is very small. My purpose is to do the technical maintenance work that has accumulated over several years (backlog) and that nobody seems willing to do. --Pxos (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your willingness to help out. Leaving this request on hold in case there are any comments on the local request. Savhñ 14:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is going to be any discussion. There is an ongoing course where people get academic credit for their contributions, but they do not know how to sign their texts (they use both article pages and discussion pages for conversation, it's a real mess). Someone has cut-and-pasted the talk pages so that the page history has been lost, and single contributions cannot be separated from the whole. Someone else has already asked where they should post their comments now. The course instructor seems to be gone, and when he was present, it was obvious that he had no idea how to use Mediawiki code properly. I understand that applications of this kind should normally be open for at least a week so that the silent community might voice their opinions on me, but I really would like to expedite this process. I could sort out the mess this weekend and get things on the right track. I am now thinking of seeking a permanent adminship later on, and community discussion on that could be open for several weeks. --Pxos (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The local discussion has now been open for at least eight days, and there are no comments at all. --Pxos (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-02-28. Apologies for the delay in attending this. Please place a new announcement locally a few days before the right expires and file a new request here to have the permission extended. Thank you for your willingness to help! Savhñ 12:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
extended Ajraddatz (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gius195, Hippias, R5b43, RicoRico and Pegasovagante@itwikiversity

In order to perform a lot of administrative tasks needed to the reorganization of it.wikiversity, we request adminship for users: Gius195, Hippias, R5b43, RicoRico, pegasovagante. Even if we follow a standard procedure according to local policy, we ask a temporary 6-months adminship. Thank you RicoRico (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think 6 months for these 5 is reasonable. I'll flip it shortly if no one objects. MBisanz talk 19:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-02-26. --MF-W 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All 5 have been removed. Matanya (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Requesting administrator access to help with vandalism/spam (and pages that are awaiting deletion; pages with barely any work) Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can only give you a temporary access for 3 months. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that would be fine. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-04-16. MBisanz talk 01:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed Removed per request Mardetanha talk 12:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global IP block exempt for TakuyaMurata

<Add an explanation here>, thanks, --Taku (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added for 6 months. If you are still caught by a block then, please re-request these rights here. Ajraddatz (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
removedMarcoAurelio 12:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miscellaneous requests


Based on phab:T125390, please give me import right and transwiki-import right on This wiki is the association wiki of Wikimedia Belgium. I post this request as board member of WMBE, admin on and project leader of Wiki Loves Monuments in Belgium and Luxembourg. Romaine (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. The importer right will give you access to both, the importupload and the transwiki import feature. Bug might take some time before being fixed, specially since it might need some review, as wlmbe is not a wmf-wiki and thus security might veto its addition as transwiki import source. —MarcoAurelio 15:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Iniquity@ru-wikisource

Hello, I ask to grant me 'transwiki' rights in ru.wikisource project. Iniquity (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! Iniquity (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User bachounda@arwikipedia and bachounda@frwikipedia

to don't have problem of creation account limited generally to maximum of six according to the information I have i request to have a grant to create account for other editors during the training workshops of wikipedia in both wikipedia arabic and french thanks --Mohammed Bachounda (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any discussion or consensus regarding this? —MarcoAurelio 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bachounda: please link to local discussions. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ajraddatz: @MarcoAurelio: hi, I had a private discussion with an administrator in Arabic wikipedia he pointed me here. I have not started a local discution in Arabic and French wikipedia wikipedia.
in this link To outreach im coordidator to WEP
in wikipedia arabic you can see my privileges; i am ambasador to Education Program
thanks --Mohammed Bachounda (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm inclined to grant this request. Before that, though, would you mind leaving some sort of notice to both projects that you will be creating many accounts? With this right you'll be able to avoid rate limits, and some local admins might be upset with that many actions, so best to let them know beforehand. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok @Ajraddatz:, i understand ,i will create a local discution in both arabic and french wikipedia And i coming back to you
Mohammed Bachounda (talk)
hi @Ajraddatz: i just letting 2 demand i the both wokipedia ar and fr like tou tell me , now i'm waiting the responses
fr request Demande Statue créateur de comptes utilisateur
arabic request طلبي في ميتا لصلاحية - منشئو الحسابات
--Mohammed Bachounda (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done in fr. ©éréales Kille® 15:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As bureaucrat in i confirm this request.--Abbas 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Done at per local bureaucrat confirmation (yes, I realize he could have flicked the switch, but I am trying to move the ball forward per his confirmation). MBisanz talk 01:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Local crats on arwiki can't add or remove the account creator permission, so you did the right thing :) Ajraddatz (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoops, thanks. MBisanz talk 12:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks Sailesh Patnaik (Talk2Me|Contribs) 11:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Saileshpat: I think that's best handled through throttle exception on wmf-config, so the users will be able to create the accounts themselves. All I need is a start date and hour and an end date and hour, a number of expected participants and the IP address or IP range you'll be using for the event. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 12:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aurelio , The date is 26 February 2016 and the workshop will be in between 9:00 am - 1:00 pm (IST). We expect minimum 50 participants for the workshop and IP details is given above. Face-smile.svg -- Sailesh Patnaik (Talk2Me|Contribs) 16:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'll work on that now. I'm also inclined to grant the right just in case accounts need to be created manually in case of error; but would preferr that you announced that you're requesting the right on the village pump of your wiki for the event. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done in task T127599. —MarcoAurelio 17:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Face-smile.svg-- Sailesh Patnaik (Talk2Me|Contribs) 08:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Aurelio, Today we found that laboratory has two IP address. Can you please add this IP to the existing task. We also need an extension from 11:00 am to 3:00 am on 25th February 2016 not 26th(IST).

I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience.-- Sailesh Patnaik (Talk2Me|Contribs) 08:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will also work into this after having lunch. I might hopefully get this deployed in one of the SWAT windows for today. —MarcoAurelio 12:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hope , I will not face any more problem tomorrow, I have only 15hrs with me. Thanks in advance.-- Sailesh Patnaik (Talk2Me|Contribs)
Yes check.svg Done. Should work, but in case you run into problems, I'm assigning you temporary account creator rights. —MarcoAurelio 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done Granted to expire on 2016-02-27. —MarcoAurelio 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]