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= 
}}

(your remarks) Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What permission do you want? Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: I want administration at sd.Wiktionary because at sd.wiktionary is only 1 administration Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to start a local discussion first. Ruslik (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: I have added local discussion link Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, transclude that subpage to the main discussion page. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: done Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any transclusion. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now check transclusion. Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

???? Ruslik (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleem Bhatti: It's still not transcluded on a request for administrator rights page. Please do so. Trijnstel_talk 21:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trijnstel: Please now check I have added administrators link and sorry because first I was not understand Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either you transclude it properly or I will close this request as not done. Ruslik (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: Could you please help me how can I transclude it. Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: Kaleem Bhatti (talk)

See the previous request and its linked voting; it would be preferable a long extension of the admin rights (at least 1-2 years). Thank you in advance, Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 09:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should start a new vote. Ruslik (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paputx, Xavi Dengra, how is it going? --Base (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0 and Base: No, we shouldn't start a new voting. This decision was taken by unanimity in Dec 2018 and not for just a period of 3 or 6 months. Every wiki should have a sovereignty, and not restrict admin access' criteria to what Meta stewards feel free for a subjective deadline. This has happenned in Catalan projects beforehand: denials of admin and bureacrat rights, continuous changes driven by Meta and promoted by the WMF with very narrow consensus and few participation of previous notice. Meta is just getting a burden for small and difficult to run small projects, of which those new and dedicated members just want to improve the content without pending all the time of such superstructures that are not investing any efforts in improve the interface or quality of projects that are not anglocentric or Wikipedia. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Paputx was granted adminship for the first time and the community at that time was small, I agree with Ajraddatz on the granting of temporary adminship and I would have, personally, done the same, as stated in our handbook. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xavi Dengra, I know what it feels like. That being said as stewards we need to ensure that wikis have permissions delegated to people that are supported by the communities. At the current size of cawikibooks, with less than 20 people ever having made 500 edits it is not a wiki with a big community. I do not feel confident enough about giving them permanent rights after only 3 months they held them. Given support Paputx will get adminship for longer term this time, but that is it. The best way you can help this is to have cawikibooks grow. Have you considered doing some outreach (perhaps with Amical Wikimedia help) to get more people involved in the project? --Base (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paputx is a trusted user, and the community at that time decided to make him administrator. I understand that stewards have a big responsability in this sense, but global policies shouldn't override local community consensus in this matter (and his candidature didn't specify a time limit, so it was understood as having a permanent duration). He hasn't caused any conflicts during his time as administrator, so I don't see why he can't be renewed without a new vote. As for your suggestion, promoting our sister projects is part of our strategic plan for the next years, so yes, that's something we are planning to do (In fact, Paputx already organised an edit-a-thon for Wikibooks a month ago or so, which led to the writing of a whole new book; I'll be doing a follow-up event during July). --Unapersona (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Unapersona said, and given the fact that is a really small community, reaching an agreement for a new administrator means that the editors expect a stable task -and not just one for three months. We might not expect indefinite rights, but neither votings every three months to ratify positions, because this erosions the resilience and stability of a small group like ours. When I referred to the superstructures, intrusion in well-organised decisions, and lack of sovereignty I meant exactly that behind every project, Amical Wikimedia stays awake that there is no a major problem in any sister project. And that thanks to our proximity to the small communities, most of the main editors in every Catalan Wikimedia project is also a member of the organisation. Since Paputx is admin and one year even before, he has carried out different workshops, meetings to release free-licensed materials, and promoted new activities on Wikibooks. Also as an admin for 10 years in ca.wikibooks, I wouldn't ask his renewal if I was not absolutely sure of this reliability. That's why, from all my respect to your volunteer task, I disagree on the stewards' assumptions: because every community has an own context and the decision should be directly taken from the sovereign result of each voting. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 18:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my administrator rights expire soon, which is why I would like to continue to renew or long-lasting rights. Yours sincerely Munkhzaya.E (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Munkhzaya.E, could you please start a new discussion and have it last for at least a week? --Base (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Base, that was the new discussion, I just did not delete the earlier answers, now everything fits. Best regards Munkhzaya.E (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooswesthoesbes has been re-elected as a administrator (on Limburgish Wikinews). Can you please grant him admin rights again for a new period? Generally a term of one year is granted. When one views his service as an administrator on many more projects, I think it is very fair to make an exception for him to grant him these rights for an indefinite term. There is no risk at all for Ooswesthoesbes (5 votes in favour with a total of 5 votes - and again re-elected). He is an acclaimed user and administrator yet for a long time and on many projects. Sincerely, Ymnes (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold until 1 July 2019 Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to local policy If an administrator within 3 months doesn't make 500 edits and 50 sysop actions, sysop rights will be removed without voting. In last three-month periods he has not made the required 500 edits; see 25 February—25 May (483 total). In Georgian Wikipedia, Bureaucrats can't remove sysop rights, and therefore I apply to stewards on Meta-Wiki. Best regards, გიო ოქრო (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@გიო ოქრო: Should the bureaucrat right be removed as well? Ruslik (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: No, because that rule don't includes bureaucrat right. გიო ოქრო (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@გიო ოქრო: Bureaucrats override admins for they can grant people admins. Chances are that once a steward removes the admin access of MIKHEIL, it could be soon granted by MIKHEIL themselves. --Super Wang hates PC _{You hate, too?} 09:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Wang: Yes, there are. But I think MIKHEIL will not do it. I just apply you about the administrator right. Do it as you decide. გიო ოქრო (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the local rules, sysop status from MIKHEIL must be removed without discussion and vote, only by the stewards of Meta-Wiki; discussion on local level and decision of the local community is no longer needed (This is written in the rule — „If an administrator within 3 months does not make 500 edits and 50 sysop actions, sysop rights will be removed without voting (automatically)“). He is not an active editor. He made 483 edits in three months (from which 70-80% was Usertalk) and he has not made the required edits. Local rules don't say that I don't have the right for request on meta-wiki, especially that the Georgian bureaucrats can't remove sysop rights. @Super Wang, Ruslik0, -revi, and Tegel: and other stewards, please summarize that issue and make a decision. Best regards, გიო ოქრო (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@გიო ოქრო:It may be disappointing, but far from your prediction, I am not a steward. Sorry for being unable to assist you. --Super Wang hates PC _{You hate, too?} 23:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show an identical case, the rules of pt.wiki also allow a user to be a bureaucrat, but not an sysop (and there we also have bureaucrats who are not sysops). A few years ago I asked for the removal of only my sysop rights and the request was done without further delay. Érico (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it was your own request. Ruslik (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I am not discussing the merit of this request, but only stating that it is natural to have wikis in which a user can be a bureaucrat but not sysop. Érico (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it is pointless to remove sysop access from a local bureaucrat who can make himself a sysop again the next day. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he can, but without election he has no right to make himself a sysop, and therefor I think Mikheil will not do it. At last, sysop right must be remove (according to the local policy). Thanks, გიო ოქრო (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can Mikheil confirm this here? Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask him:

@MIKHEIL: გთხოვ დაგვიდასტურო, რომ იმ შემთხვევაში თუ ჩამოგერთმევა ადმინისტრატორის სტატუსი, შენ, როგორც ბიუროკრატი ამ სტატუსს არ აღიდგენ კვლავ, კენჭისყრის გარეშე.

Please confirm, that if an administrator status will be removed, you, as a bureaucrat, will not make yourself an administrator again without voting. გიო ოქრო (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I think MIKHEIL should not be an admin (per RFC I mentioned earlier) I think this is an exercise in futility. --Rschen7754 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: As we see, he isn't going to answer. გიო ოქრო (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been active the past couple of years. User has already been notified in april that his admin status is going to be removed because of inactivity. Servien (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Servien: Does nds-nl Wikipedia have any specific policy about administrator inactivity? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we currently don't have a specific policy. If we notice that admins haven't been very active the past (couple of) year(s) we ask if the user wants to retain his/her admin status. If so, the admin at least has to contribute to the project in some way, if this is not the case then admin rights don't have any added value and should be removed. Servien (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I can remove the admin bit without a local policy or a vote. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't been active the past couple of years. User has already been notified in april that his admin status is going to be removed because of inactivity. Servien (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my bureaucrat access. I have asked that admin be removed locally. Thanks and good bye. WJBscribe (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2019 (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: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12