Steward requests/Permissions

==== Username@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!-- Don't change this line -->
 |domain    = <!-- Such as en.wikibooks -->
 |user name = 
 |discussion= 
}}
(your remarks) ~~~~

==== User name@xxproject ====
{{sr-request
 |status    = <!--don't change this line-->
 |domain    =
 |user name =
 |discussion= 
}}

I would like to renew my adminship, it has expired. I asked my friend to become a co-admin, but I want to keep my own adminship as main administrator. Bokareis (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until 20 March. ~ Nahid ^Talk 12:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2016-09-21. ~ Nahid ^Talk 01:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi , need 3 month orgent admin access for fa.wikivoyage Florence (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold giving community at least a week to voice their possible concerns Mardetanha ^talk 09:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mardetanha , this page created from 6 March 2016 , and we in New Year preparations , Thanks --Florence (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 3 month, would expire on 2016/05/16 Mardetanha ^talk 08:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mard , ANd Happy New Year :) --Florence (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardetanha:Also 3 month hast ta 2016/06/16 na 2016/05/16  :) --Florence (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-06-16. . --Stryn (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Adminship is expire on 27th march. I want to continue. Past adminship period is 3 month. I also temporary admin of hi.wikiquote. please grant one year admin right. Thanks.Bhatakati aatma (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold till 27 March 2016. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 On hold till 25 March 2016. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Максим Підліснюк was elected on sysop rights in Abkhazian Wikipedia for 4 months. Ilya Drakonov (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

 Granted for 4 months to expire on 2016-07-25. 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. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  Done I do not think that there is any other option left in this situation. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request bureaucrat rights in Chechen Wikipedia. --Дагиров Умар (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that five votes is enough. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continue vote? --Дагиров Умар (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can, of course, continue. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done. Trijnstel_talk 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Zh.wikibooks has an active bureaucrat. Please approach him instead. Savh^ñ 10:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Woops, sorry - I should have noticed. Savh^ñ 08:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Stang 06:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Steward requests
• Log of changes to user rights
• Log of global rights-related changes
• Steward handbook
• Users that have signed confidentiality agreement for nonpublic personal data
• Archives
  • 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024
  • 2025: 01