Steward requests/Permissions/2015-10

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in October 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

I'm not sure what to put here. Both of the people who replied to my request supported it. Let me know if I'm leaving something out. KSFT (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Please contact the local bureaucrat, jbo:User:PierreAbbat, first to see if he is going to address your request. If it turns out he is inactive and doesn't respond to queries, stewards can step in. --MF-W 02:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@MF-Warburg: I attempted to contact him about a week ago, but it seems like he's inactive. KSFT (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have pinged the 'crat at enWP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

He responded and has made me an admin, so I guess this can be closed, although he's still inactive on jbowikipedia. KSFT (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant. It might be a good idea to indicate locally that the request is closed as well. --MF-W 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sysop on Romanian Wikiquote (and also on ro.wp) and I don't consider that Sergentul is fit to have administrator rights as he doesn't seem able to understand and follow the policies. He has been blocked on Romanian Wikipedia recently and he was also warned for using sockpuppets. Also, the local policy says that a candidate must apply here to get the permissions. Even though it's a small community, the users from Wikipedia have voted in the past for worthy candidates, so there is no reason to bypass this step. Firilacroco ^talk 21:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Start a discussion following the local process, then come back here if it is successful. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, could someone please take a moment to accept or decline my request for tools? There don't seem to be any active bureaucrats on testwiki that aren't already stewards. Thanks!  :) -FASTILY 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. Normally I'd be fine with stepping in when the local crats haven't dealt with it, but in this case with past drama there I think it is best for the locals to look over the nomination. Please contact crats through a noticeboard or individually and have them review your case. Sorry, Ajraddatz (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Thanks for the prompt reply. Your instructions confuse me. I am posting here because there don't seem to be any active crats on test.wikipedia who . Also, I'm not aware of a bureaucrat's noticeboard (that is actively watched) on test.wikipedia. If one exists, could you please point me to it? Thanks, FASTILY 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find one. Try going through testwiki:Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat and message active ones. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: No disrespect, but that is not a helpful suggestion. I have already gone through the list, and I don't see any active crats who are handling tool requests. Regardless, I'm hesitant to mass message the few users who might be active because it could be perceived as forum shopping. -FASTILY 03:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Never mind, request was handled by Legoktm. Thanks anyways -FASTILY 03:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Done I don't think anyone is ever active on test.wp itself, but plenty of us are active around the wikiverse. Legoktm (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -FASTILY 03:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, thanks Legoktm. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask for an extension of my administrator rights on the wiki. My current rights udøber 23 October 2015. I applied for an extension. --Sorenhk (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible that I can manage to get it renewed before it expires in a few hours?? --Sorenhk (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 23-10-2016. Savh^ñ 18:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like sysop access on the test wikipedia for the purposes of testing changes to the interface in the MediaWiki namespace. I had proposed a change to the interface on the English Wikipedia on en:MediaWiki:Antispoof-conflict-bottom which was discussed and then implemented. However, the page ultimately had to be deleted because the links were shown to users as source code rather than links. I'd like to do some testing to make sure I fully understand the reason why this happens before I file a bug report. If I end up having to report a bug, which is then fixed and implemented into the software, I will need to do testing to verify that the bug fix works as intended. There are other MediaWiki namespace changes that I would like to propose as well, but given this issue, I would like to test them on the test wikipedia before proposing them on enwiki. I am making this request here because the local permissions page on the test wikipedia is backlogged, and if I end up needing to file a bug report, I would prefer to do it sooner rather than later. Mww113 (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Hi. Visit testwiki:Wikipedia:Requests/Permissions for local requests. Alan ^(talk) 22:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I just posted there as well; but as the test wikipedia states it is not a community, I was under the impression that sysop rights there are not predicated upon the normal consensus process. In this case, having sysop access is merely a technical necessity to conduct the testing that I would like to do. Since there are users who have been waiting since August, I figured it would make sense to ask here. There is already consensus on enwiki for the aforementioned interface change, and I'd like to test sooner rather than later as it could take a while to to go through the bug report process even after the testing is complete (should that be necessary). Best, Mww113 (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. This will be handled locally on Test-Wiki. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 04:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Done locally. Thanks! Mww113 (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, start a local discussion and provide a link to it here. Ruslik (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Sergentul (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing as not done. Despite aknowledgement, no local request has been placed. Should you wish to request adminship on that wiki, please place a request on a visible community page (Travellers pub, ...) and file a new request here after a few days. Since there are no local admins on ro.wikivoyage, we greatly appreciate your offer to help, but please allow for community input. Savh^ñ 03:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Savh^ñ 03:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

--Amir a57 (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here I read about Patrolled edits. For this I want Recent Changes Patrol Rights. Because in sa.wikipedia so many changes are vandalism and wrong. Since 2 year I am seeing in recent changes for this vandalism etc. But it is very difficult if I don't know which edit should be seen or not. This right will be helped me for this and my work will be fast and easy. Here I put in village pump and sa.wikipedia admin said that, "This is behind his rights" So I am asking here. NehalDaveND (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

" 09:59, 27 October 2015 Shubha (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for NehalDaveND from (none) to autopatroller (स्वनिवेदनम्)". It has already been done locally. Savh^ñ 08:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

here you can see what is difference between Patrol and autopatrol. I want patrol rights which are different. If not please guide me. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for This right. NehalDaveND (talk)

(edit conflict) Commonswiki (same as enwiki) uses a different set of rights than sa.wiki. As you can see here, sa.wiki does not have this right and so we won't grant it to you. -Barras talk 09:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay! but if I want to enable this right is sa.wiki can I do so or that right is only for commanswiki and en.wiki ? NehalDaveND (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You'd require community consensus to get this right enabled on sa.wiki. -Barras talk 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Barras: Okay if I get consensus of community, than where should I ask ? Here or elsewhere ? NehalDaveND (talk)

On phabricator. -Barras talk 11:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please give me the access as discussed by local community consensus. Thank you. Jayantanth (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

On the projects with such small editing communities we do not usually grant bureaucrat permissions. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik, I know the small wiki classification, But our bnws is growing day by day. As of now there is less than 10 admin,but community needs a minimum one bureaucrat. So what kind of consensus from the the local community you need to grant this permission? If small wiki community wants one bureaucrat/ maintain it from local ( you can monitor from global),what is oppose here? Jayantanth (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You may find here, small with one bureaucrat, like

1. fiwikisource (fi.wikisource.org)
2. srwikisource (sr.wikisource.org)
3. itwikibooks (it.wikibooks.org)
4. sqwiktionary (sq.wiktionary.org)
5. kawiktionary (ka.wiktionary.org)
6. ptwikibooks (pt.wikibooks.org)
7. bswiktionary (bs.wiktionary.org)
8. frwikiquote (fr.wikiquote.org)
9. frrwiki (frr.wikipedia.org)
10. cswikiquote (cs.wikiquote.org)
11. fiu-vrowiki (fiu-vro.wikipedia.org)
12. pswiki (ps.wikipedia.org)
13. skwikiquote (sk.wikiquote.org)
14. bgwikiquote (bg.wikiquote.org)
15. gvwiki (gv.wikipedia.org)
16. zhwikinews (zh.wikinews.org)
17. zeawiki (zea.wikipedia.org)
18. csbwiki (csb.wikipedia.org)
19. dvwiki (dv.wikipedia.org)

Jayantanth (talk) 06:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done. In the past, bureaucrat access was granted on very small projects. This has not been the practice for several years. At the moment the community is far too small to support a bureaucrat particularly as, in effect, the only role now is creating administrators. It isn't a question of getting X number of supports to create a bureaucrat, it's a question of the size of the community as a whole. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

So What is the WMF plan? Not to grow small wiki? Where is the policy, not to grants bureaucrat access for a small wiki? What is the plan with one or two bureaucrat in small wiki? Should you remove their access? The meta community just through out local community decision. Please explain. Thank you. Jayantanth (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to be a bureaucrat to "grow" your wiki. Ruslik (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

NNW (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 On hold, user must sign confidentiality agreement before granting the rights. einsbor _talk 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User signed the agreement. Will proceed shortly. —MarcoAurelio 09:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Done —MarcoAurelio 09:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Other administrative things (such as list etc) done as well. Trijnstel_talk 11:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

NNW (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 On hold, user must sign confidentiality agreement before granting the rights. einsbor _talk 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User signed the agreement, will proceed shortly. —MarcoAurelio 09:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Observation: without admin rights CU rights are rather limited. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 09:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This will be done by a local crat. --Filzstift (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Other administrative things (such as list etc) done as well. Trijnstel_talk 11:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As a current arbitrator, request made in the name of the Committee. Thanks in advance. Courcelles 04:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 05:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As a current arbitrator, request made in the name of the Committee. Thanks in advance. Courcelles 04:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 05:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(your remarks) Hangsna (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold waiting the user to sign the confidentiality agreement. --Stryn (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Done.//Hannibal (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

We must wait for confirmation from the WMF at IN. --MF-W 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Done as user signed the agreement. Trijnstel_talk 18:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(your remarks) Hangsna (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold waiting the user to sign the confidentiality agreement. --Stryn (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Done.//Idunius (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Done as user signed the agreement. Trijnstel_talk 18:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Per French arbcom decision here. Thanks, — Racconish^✉ 07:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

On hold pending username being on here Ajraddatz (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Should be soon, I signed both documents. Supertoff (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove my rights of both bureaucrat and sysop. I have been inactive, and I will not be able to contribute the project for a while. Thank you, Ninomy (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. --Stryn (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 09:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed annual administrator confirmation due to inactivity. Please remove administrator bit. Thanks, Hesperian 01:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 07:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 07:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. User has still zero global user renamings. Please remove permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. User has still zero global user renamings. Please remove permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. User has still zero global user renaming. Please remove permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. User has still zero global user renaming. Please remove permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. User has still zero global user renaming. Please remove permission. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 17:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have reverted all rights removal pending investigation of phab:T111847. —MarcoAurelio 18:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug has been fixed. User has still zero global user renaming. Permission can be removed. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --MF-W 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done --Stryn (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done --Stryn (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Global renamers#Removal_of_access. Right not used for +1 year. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done --Stryn (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No longer a staff. This account can also be locked. GZWDer (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF and Mdennis (WMF):, can you confirm please, i know Philippe left, but just wanted a confirmation from a WMF person that these rights can be removed (Also IIRC staff account locks are done by James/WMF staff)--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 16:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Account locks of former staff accounts are handled now by those in the WMF Office IT group. —MarcoAurelio 16:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Outreach should really be done by a crat, they can desysop and de-crat there. --Rschen7754 22:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the rights being removed, Marco is correct that locks are done by OIT now. I've reminded them but don't believe the risk for Philippe is enough that I'd step in to do it myself :). I have indeed removed Philippe's staff rights already though. Jalexander--WMF 22:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Please remove my sysop access on Persian Wikipedia. Thank you in advance -- Nojan (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Stryn (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove my sysop rights. I have decided to resign. Marek Koudelka (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions --Stryn (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your service as an admin. --MF-W 02:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

He is inactive for 6 months (edits on User_talk do not count), after notification, he still has no activities in the following 30 days. Per our local policy, The admin flag ought to be removed.--Kegns 04:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you please give a link to the policy? --MF-W 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

zh:WP:INACTIVE.--GY Fan★ 09:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Done--Shanmugamp7 ^(talk) 17:16, 10 October 2015 (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 (https://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Nemo5576&diff=43697764&oldid=43473014). PG (talk) 10:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Done MBisanz ^talk 12:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

As announced some days ago, requesting removal of crat rights for my account. -Barras talk 10:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Done -Barras talk 10:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the local re-election rules the user has to start a re-election after 30 days of request (15.09.), which is now over. Please remove the sysop rights. Thanks. Der Umherirrende (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

According to this page (February 2015) he has developer rights, so he has the rights now as a developer (like Cirdan who has the sysop rights for his work as a checkuser and also hasn't been elected as a sysop and like most of the members of the Schiedsgericht, see here). --Winternacht (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no concept of developer on dewiki. If he needs the rights for this work as MediaWiki developer, there should be a global groups (Special:GlobalGroupPermissions) to have the rights on all wmf wikis and not dewiki. MediaWiki Developer usually working for all wikis and than needs rights on all wikis. Der Umherirrende (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

That’s right, but up to now, there is no such global group. And in the past, there have also been other developers at dewiki which only had the sysop rights because of being developer, see for example here Domas Mituzas and others in the past. This has been and is now the way of handling this issue, if developers have the sysop rights for their function as developer. And therefore, it should also be this way now, until Magnus says, he doesn’t need the rights anymore for his work as a developer or until there is such a global group. I noticed him about this discussion, so if he wants, he can say something about this from his own perspective. As long as he is a developer, he should remain the rights as long as he needs them and as there is no global group for the developers. --Winternacht (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a matter which should be resolved on dewiki before stewards can action it. That said, there is no reason for a developer to have sysop access on any wikis (in that capacity); the two roles are not related. Please start a local discussion and come back when it is resolved. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Domas Mituzas was system administrator and not developer. For a system administrator it could be more relevant to have sysop rights, but for this reason the global group was created (or could be used). A developer does not need the rights in advance, he can get it global or ask for temp local rights, if needed. There is no fast needed rights in case of imminent danger. Der Umherirrende (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is it possible for stewards to create such a global group for developers now, where they can get all the rights needed for all wikis? Or what has to be done for that? --Winternacht (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically yes, but we probably won't do that. There is no need for volunteer MediaWiki developers (in that capacity) to have any sort of advanced access on Wikimedia, as the roles are entirely unrelated, and those who do need access are system administrators. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Just any volunteer MediaWiki developer? I doubt that very much: en:Magnus Manske#Development of MediaWiki. --Winternacht (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is untrue, we have enough global groups for those who need access (especially Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/sysadmin), and Domas merely had local user rights due to a SUL conflict. Nobody will ever be allowed to circumvent right removals enforced by the community, except maybe WMF employees with their separate WMF role accounts. Vogone (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Brion Vibber also had local sysop rights because of being a developer and had no regular rights at dewiki, and there hasn’t been any SUL conflict. Then I don’t understand this anymore, or has there been a big change in the last years? --Winternacht (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is or was part of the global group, see log. Der Umherirrende (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use that list for giving people rights. Ajraddatz, there are reasons to grant volunteer developers rights (in fact, a few Wikimedia wikis do it explicitly in that capacity) just as there are for staff. There are currently volunteer developers in the sysadmins group (some with actual shell access and some with just the on-wiki global group thing), for example. Winternacht, has dewiki actually decided to give this user indefinite sysop because they're a developer? If not, I suggest this removal should go ahead. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This request is about taking a right which can be needed also as a developer. So, why take a right which a person has for two reasons, just because one reason is gone? There are more people that have the right because of other reasons. Then put Magnus in the sysadmin group instead, so he can use these rights as developer. User:Hoo man is also a System administrator (comment there: "Volunteer, WMDE?", not WMF). Or User:JeLuF , he also is in the sysadmin group. Are they all paid? I don’t think so. Is it possible to give Magnus sysadmin rights then? I think this would be a good idea. He isn’t just any developer. When someone doesn’t want to have the sysop rights anymore, but still is a checkuser or arbcom member or bureaucrat, then he also holds the sysop rights and there is no reason to take them, just because he is no regular sysop anymore. --Winternacht (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Krenair, there has never been the question that he shouldn’t have the rights as a developer. So, why should there be a decision, when there is no need for it, because he always had the sysop rights? Dewiki had never decided about the sysop rights about Brion or Domas either, but they had the rights. If there shall be a discussion or decision about it, then it’s necessary to know about it. That hasn’t been the case up to now. Telling that there has to be a discussion about that, is completely new. --Winternacht (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The community asked for a(n) (re-)election and he didn't start it. There is no evidence that sysop rights are needed even only as an developer (btw that was your (Winternachts) opinion just four weeks ago, too). And if he really needs such rights as a developer then it would be sensible to have them globally, not only in one project. NNW (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely it was (what else? it has been standard by now this way), and there has been noone saying that it wouldn't be so. So, you see that one of the 25 Wiederwahlstimmen needed for this request is based on the fact that in case of no election after the 30 days, he still can hold the sysop rights as a developer, but not as regular sysop without an election. And you also see that there has been noone that had another opinion about that up to now (I didn't read something like that anywhere), so I'm very astonished about this now. Here on the talk page of his AWW page are some more opinions that he should have the rights as a developer, so that's surely not only my opinion, Gruß Tom 2012: „Wie bereits bei Raymond vorgeschlagen[1] wäre ein Status wie etwa "Systemadministrator der Wikimedia-Server, daher keine Wiederwahl" für diesen Account angebracht.“ (Hey, you can find Gruß Tom also on this page despite the fact that he has been for the system admin rights for Magnus.) I've read that more often in the past. And noone told, that he shouldn't have the rights as developer. There has been no such opinion on the talk page either. It seems that there are different opinions now, and the question is, if he can get the system administrator rights now, then this discussion can come to an end. If not, we have to discuss it at dewiki first and see, what other people mean, for example on de:WP:AN.

So first the question here for the stewards: Can he get the system administrator rights instead (like other volunteer developers) or is there any problem with this (if yes, what would it be)? If not possible (for whatever reason): discuss it further at dewiki, before doing something here, because there is no hurry. Then the decision would be based upon something. --Winternacht (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Requests for adding and removing sysadmin rights come from WMF staff usually. I suggest @Magnus Manske: to approach @Jalexander-WMF: so he can tell us to add him or not. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why two seperated aspects should be mixed. 1) Following de:WP rules for re-election he lost his sysop rights. There is nobody who disagrees. So his sysop flag for de:WP has to be removed by community consensus. 2) If he should have developer/system administrator/whatever rights (regardless if he needs them or if this would be honoris causa), then he might ask for them or the foundation/whoever might grant them. And de:WP community will be fine with this. But this is a completly different question and has got nothing to do with his lost of sysop rights in de:WP. NNW (talk) 10:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobody on dewiki disagreed with the fact that Magnus holds now the sysop rights only for his work as a developer (do you think that it has to be or do you only think that the community might want that, but you don't think this way? this is not clear to me – then the community should be asked, how the opinions about that are, and not here, but there). So there is no reason to remove the rights. I don't think that there is a consens about removing the rights from a developer just because of AWW. Other developers hadn't even a AWW page, they were out of this system. They were also out of the system of removing the sysop rights because of inactivity. Domas was more than 3 years inactive as user (no edits or logs) and didn't lose the sysop rights because of inactivity, because he had the rights as developer. So you see, that this is no reason for removing the rights from developers. If – as in this case – someone has the rights not only as a normal sysop, but also in another function, then he holds the rights in this other function. If the WMF would give him system administrator rights, then he wouldn't need the sysop rights locally for that reason. But if not, then they should remain there. For example: He never had bureaucrat rights at dewiki, but he once even gave other users sysop rights with shell access. So that's the prove that he had not only normal sysop rights, otherwise that wouldn't be possible. He shouldn't lose the rights as a developer because of AWW. AWW has never been the way to decide about access to sysop rights as developer. Yes, I think the dewiki community will be fine with the access to system administrator rights (or something like that). And it also will be fine with holding the sysop rights as developer instead. There's no problem with that. It's just the question about the way that is best for that. Removing the sysop rights now just because of AWW would be one step before the other instead of after another, in my opinion. How about asking the Foundation and Magnus, what they think about that? They already got a ping above. I don't think that we're in a hurry, are we? Nobody disagreed that Magnus is a great developer. So why removing the rights (for this purpose) without an alternative user group or something like that? --Winternacht (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This can result in the same discussion about Jimmy and his founder user group which can take forever. The result is a global founder group, this is also possible here. We should honor the work, but there is no need for extra privilige, just for honor. Privilige needed for work. Der Umherirrende (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, no I didn't read the text above and I don't intend to do so anytime soon. Secondly, this page is not for any kind of discussions. Please have your talk elsewhere and come back with a conclusion. -Barras talk 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The current community consens is defined by votes, that means: No poll after a forced re-poll within 30 days needs remove of sysop. If the community want the sysop rights for other reasons than the need as sysop, than that is still possible after removed. That would also have the benefit of clear reasons in the log. Please close this section as rejected/invalid, if no steward would do the requested remove of the user right or close it as done by removing the user rights. Thanks. Der Umherirrende (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Der Umherirrende simply asked for removing a flag according to the usual de-admin process and just because another user brings up something about "developer" &c with no context to this removing process this isn't done? Ridiculous. NNW (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Citing from the instructions above "To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first". Community consensus is that the rights are to be removed a month after the recall quorum is reached and no reelection is started. There is no community concern at all concerning developer privileges as this is nothing the community ever had to decide. → «« Man77 »» ^[de] 13:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• The point is, that no one is going to grant/deny requests here without reading the discussions. So better don't discuss on this page. If discussions occur, it prolongs the process. Anyway, I've now removed the right, so Done. Just remind, that this page is not intend to discuss. -Barras talk 11:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I wish to give up my bureaucrat and checkuser rights, while maintaining the administrator rights. Rsocol (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day per standard practice. --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Thanks for your past service in those roles! -Barras talk 09:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rsocol (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to resign as sysop on it.wikipedia, please remove my sysop-flag there. Thanks in advance. Caarl 95 (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 1 day per standard practice. --Stryn (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Done - thanks for your past service. -Barras talk 13:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please remove my sysop flag on uk.wikipedia. ReAl (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold for 24 hours per standard procedure. -Barras talk 19:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Done -Barras talk 19:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove admin status. Snow Blizzard has been already informed and thanked for his work. Thanks. --Euphydryas (msg) 23:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Savh^ñ 03:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove my oversight status for the swedish Wikipedia. My election period will end soon (october 31). Two new oversighters have recently been elected [8] to take over and they are in action, so I think there is really no need for me anymore. Höstblomma (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, oversight status removed, three remain. Thank you for your work over the past five years! Savh^ñ 16:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove my bureaucrat and checkuser rights only on the simple English Wikipedia, leaving me with admin and OS rights. I've planned this for quite some time already and announced it before internally, so no need to wait the 24 hours (if you put it on hold, I just do it myself ;-)) -Barras talk 23:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Done - although I still don't like it :( Trijnstel_talk 23:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've rebuilt this wiktionarie's "Tepas" about six months ago and now I want to fix some of the text interface which is less appropriate. --Uchup19 (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

On hold until 30 June (1 week discussion minimum). --MF-W 10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-10-01. Discussion open sufficient length of time without significant opposition 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) 14:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting renewal of temp adminship. Not enough community for permanent adminship. Please renew for as long as possible. Reasons: normal wiki cleanup. Malafaya (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 2015-04-03.--Jusjih (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-03. -- Jusjih (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

extended --MF-W 03:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi gom.wikipedia is new and it needs initial import for modules and infobox i tried to create it but it caused a lot of error so i request for temperory adminship of max 30days only, so that basics of this wikipedia can be designed please consider this request and grant it at the earliest so that task can be finished...tnx... Sushilmishra (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

On hold until 5 July (1 week), Could you please put a link to your request page at w:gom:चर्चा:मुखेल पान, so that people will see it. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

did it...actually i need to import infoboxes, templates and modules for which i need it temperorily, i have no intention to extend it beyond specified days...we are facing a problem there that when we are creating infoboxes then it is aligning to left instead of right but codes are all correct... example gom:Goem--Sushilmishra (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-10-05. no objections to temporary adminship w:gom:Special:PermanentLink/53547, though the rights are granted for technical changes in Special: and Mediawiki: namespace.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

removed. --Stryn (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA for user after 7 days is at 2/0/0. -- M\A 21:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the user to confirm here this request. I've posted this on their behalf since it's the first time they're involved in this. -- M\A 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MarcoAurelio, for all of your help. Yes, I am still interested in obtaining admin credentials. Kibi78704 (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-06. 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. einsbor _talk 14:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kibi78704 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA for user after 7 days is at 2/0/0. -- M\A 21:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have asked the user to confirm here this request. I've posted this on their behalf since it's the first time they're involved in this. -- M\A 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I hereby confirm Gunmhoine (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-06. 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. einsbor _talk 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(My admin access had expired. Request to provide access for at least 1 year. ) ଶିତିକଣ୍ଠ ଦାଶ (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-07. (per standard times, 1 year will be the time of next renewal) Ajraddatz (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

removed--Jusjih (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for a prolongation of my admin rights. Thank you. Voll (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-10-10. --MF-W 18:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I believe my temporary adminship on ur.wikiquote will be over in one-next month. I request it be extended for at least six months. Thank you very much. --Obaid Raza (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (or voting) should be started first on urwikiquote, I can't find it. The diff which you gave is for 2014 adminship. Regards, --Stryn (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 2015-04-07.--Jusjih (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The voting has just started at q:ur:وکی اقتباسات:منتظمین/رائے شماری/ 2Obaid Raza.  On hold until 2015-04-12. --Stryn (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

New discission= https://ur.wikiquote.org/wiki/وکی_اقتباسات:منتظمین/رائے_شماری/_2Obaid_Raza --Obaid Raza (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-12. -- Jusjih (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obaid Raza (talk)

extended --Stryn (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I am asking for a prolongation of my admin rights to maintain the Gothic wikipedia and be able to edit the main page, remove vandalism and move or protect pages. Thank you. Zylbath (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

On hold until 13 October. --MF-W 23:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-10-13. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place almost a year ago. The idea was ignored for a while, as there was no immediate emergency on Wikisource due to lack of active sysops, so nobody requested adminship for Gikü at the time. Now, things have changed.Andrei Stroe (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 Granted for 1 year to expire on 2015-10-17.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

he is very very active user.. Please maki him an administrator of Sindhi Wikipedia--محمد مجیب (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There were 7 people who voted in your requested in February 2015 and only 1 person who voted in his request. Can you explain why participation declined? MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

only He and Me know sindhi language other people are don't know sindhi..--محمد مجیب (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Last Day of Voting is 17 may--محمد مجیب (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

MBisanz Brother?--محمد مجیب (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-10-18. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That was actually 5 months, but now...

removed --Stryn (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

At present there is no admin for Kannada Wikisource. I nominated myself to become admin here. There is support for my nomination which is evident there. Some pages of Kannada Wikisource have been vandalised in recent past quite frequently. Hence there is a need of an active admin for Kannada Wikisource. I am volunteering to take up that job and there is support for my nomination. Hence I request to make me admin of Kannada Wikisource. --Pavanaja (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not see a consensus to grant you a sysop access. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It looks like 7 users supported, 1 opposed. Could you elaborate your decision a bit more with regard to the users' contribs etc? --MF-W 14:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This was elaborated by the only oppose vote: among seven supporters one is an unregistered user and five have less than 5 contributions. Ruslik (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

{{on hold}} Under discussion. -- Avi (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The job of the stewards in this case is to determine if consensus exists and, if so, implement it. The opposer raises a valid point in that a number of the ostensible supports come from accounts with little-to-no experience on the project and do not explain why they are supporting, having either been just created or having had long absences from project. As there are only a handful of accounts, it isn't that hard to tabulate and analyze all the participants:

Name	Opinion	Local edits	Kn-space Edits	Global edits
Vikashegde	Support	4	759	864
రహ్మానుద్దీన్	Support	67	97	9910
Vishwanatha Badikana	Support	3	398	1728
Vidyu44	Support	4	616	672
Anithacav	Support	1	7	7
Prashant Pandit	Support	0 (Performed by IP)	0	1
Thejeshgn	Support	1	3	103
Omshivaprakash	Oppose	128	5113	8881

While it is true that the most active local participant opposed, I think it is reasonable to say that there are at least 4 supports from people who participate in Kn-language projects and would understand the needs of KnWikisource from their activity there and KnWiki sister projects. As such, I believe that there is a consensus at this point to allow access to the toolset for the minimum three months, and the project can reassess when the term expires. -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

•  Granted for 3 months to expire on 2015-10-21. Please see analysis above. 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) 17:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I ask for an extension of my administrator rights on the wiki. My current rights udøber 4 May 2015. I applied for an extension April 11, 2015. --Sorenhk (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-23. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended. Savh^ñ 18:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been an administrator of Persian Wikibooks for more than one year. Now, I'm asking for prolongation of my access for one more year. As the only very active user there, I need the access for helping the community.--Doostdar (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)--Doostdar (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold til the 24th, one week from when the local discussion was started. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-24. -- Jusjih (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

 On hold until 25 April. Trijnstel_talk 12:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The vote is finished, so sysop rights can be extended. Openbk (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-25. Made this one for 6 months since the number of votes we're usually looking for permanent adminship is 5 or more support votes. -- M\A 13:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Openbk (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-25. einsbor _talk 14:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Community wants to extend the duration. This admin statistic. --Uğurkent^talk 17:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-30. 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 11:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please restore my sysop bit on bn.Wikibooks. Any stewards can proceed without delay, Local request started on April 22. Thanks in advance. ~ Nahid ^Talk 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Granted for 6 months to expire on 2015-10-30. 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 11:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

removed --Stryn (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would like to be added to the sysop and importer groups on this wiki. I am an active MediaWiki developer working on import-related bugs (among other things), and would like the rights on this wiki in order to test the importation of ProofreadPage data ("importer" group) and delete pages in order to reimport them ("sysop" group). I already have these rights on testwiki so I know what I'm doing :)

Re sysop rights, yes, technically there are bureaucrats on test2wiki who could grant me that right. But this wiki is a special case - most of the users with the bureaucrat right are busy developers with better things to do than grant rights on test wikis. So I hope you can make an exception in this case. This, that and the other (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this I am requesting here.

I am able to get this right but our admin is sleeping. Please give me that right for sa.wikipedia.... Thank you.... --NehalDaveND (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked sa:user:Shubha directly? Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The admin edited on the project just two days ago. Please ask him directly to grant you your desired permission. -Barras talk 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)