Jump to content

Steward requests/Permissions: Difference between revisions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 247: Line 247:
[[User:Odeesi|Odeesi]] ([[User talk:Odeesi|talk]]) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Odeesi|Odeesi]] ([[User talk:Odeesi|talk]]) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
:Needs to be done by users themselves. —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]]</small> 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
:Needs to be done by users themselves. —[[User:DerHexer|DerHexer]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:DerHexer|(Talk)]]</small> 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
::Please remove my admin permissions. Thanks for your help!--[[User:Schreiber|Schreiber]] ([[User talk:Schreiber|talk]]) 14:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


==== El Duende@de.wikipedia ====
==== El Duende@de.wikipedia ====

Revision as of 14:14, 28 July 2016

Shortcut:
SRP

This page is for requests to have stewards grant or revoke administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight rights on Wikimedia projects which do not have a local permissions procedure. Minimum voting requirement are listed here.

Old sections are archived. The list of archives is below.

  • Requests for bot flags are handled at SRB, and requests for global permissions are handled at SRGP.
  • If you are requesting adminship or bureaucratship, and your wiki has a local bureaucrat, submit your request to that user or to the relevant local request page (index).
  • For urgent requests, such as to combat large-scale vandalism on a small wiki, contact a steward in the #wikimedia-stewardsconnect IRC channel. In emergencies, type !steward in the channel to get the attention of stewards. Otherwise, you can type @steward for non-urgent help.

Other than requests to remove your own access or emergencies, please only make requests here after gaining the on-wiki approval of your local community.

Quick navigation: Administrator | Interface administrator | Bureaucrat | CheckUser | Oversight | Removal of access | Miscellaneous | Global permissions

(translate | edit)

Cross-wiki requests
Meta-Wiki requests

Using this page

1. Place the following code at the bottom of the appropriate section below: 

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

2. Fill in the values:

  • domain: the wiki's URL domain (like "ex.wikipedia" or "meta.wikimedia").
  • user name: the name of the user whose rights are to be changed (like "Exampleuser"). In case this is for multiple users, leave this field blank and give a list of these users in your remarks.
  • discussion: a link to the local vote or discussion about the rights change (for example, "[[ex:Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#ExampleUser]]"). This should normally be for at least one week, but no more than three weeks (if so, you'll need to restart the process).

3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.

Confirmation of signing confidentiality agreement

Certain permissions (notably CheckUser and Oversight) additionally require users to sign a confidentiality agreement. Users requesting these permissions must make a request below, and must also sign the confidentiality agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. The request is placed on hold temporarily, until the receipt has been formally confirmed by the Office.

Requests

COPY THE FOLLOWING CODE to the bottom of the appropriate section below: 

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


Administrator access

See Administrator for information about this user group.

  • MediaWiki interface translations are done at translatewiki.net. Please do not request administrator access solely for that purpose; your request will be declined.
  • Stewards: Please use {{Systmp}} for approved temporary requests.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

Please start a new discussion about requesting the permission on the local village pump, administrators' noticeboard or a designated page for requesting permissions each time you request or renew adminship.

  • Discussions should be open for seven days. Please request adminship here seven days after discussions started. This page is not the place for any discussions or votes. (For wikis with few active users, it is OK to have no comments.)
  • If you only want adminship for specific tasks, please state for how long and for which tasks you need it. Otherwise stewards will decide whether to assign permanent adminship and the duration of adminship. See Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements.

ethno & 4D@fj.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Thanks, User talk:Ethno & 4D Ethno & 4D (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ismail4all@so.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

Thanks, Ismail4all (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chorobek@ky.Wikipedia

Status:    On hold

Hi. Have been an admin of ky.wikipedia for last 4 years. And going to continue to contribute. If possible, pls provide permanent administrator right, if not for 2-3 years.

 On hold until 28 July ~ Nahid Talk 14:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

अनिरुद्ध!@hiwiki

Status:    Not done

7 vote for support plus his own vote=8 vote for support and 3 vote for against. 80% support so please grant admin right. His last adminship period is permanent.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steward, in Local RFA one of Admin named Mala chaubey close this RFA as undone. She is opposite voter and no right to decide result.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
admin mala chaubey moved this nomination to archive page and block me on hiwiki. Bcoz i have rollback her edit. Need action by steward.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 07:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that there was a consensus to promote. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday we started new RfA. So please hold on. This RFA for permanent adminship.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I request the stewards to kindly note that earlier poll ran between 4-16 July which was unsuccessful because User:अनिरुद्ध! could not secure the much needed 80% votes. Therefore a hasty re-poll effort is rather illogical. However, I also oppose any effort to block User:YmKavishwar as I view him to be a dedicated editor. Therefore, please close the poll issue as "not done" and at the same time protect User:YmKavishwar from any unwarranted block. --Muzammil (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
YmKavishwar said " in Local RFA one of Admin named Mala chaubey close this RFA as undone. She is opposite voter and no right to decide result." Is it this true? If this is actually true, I tend to consider this as bad closure and I urge steward to allow the new RfA to run for the next seven days for a clearer consensus. According YmKavishwar, in the first RfA, there were 8 support votes and 3 oppose votes. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Yes, we may not have a clearer consensus to promote but this is certainly controversial for a local admin to close as not done. User:Mala chaubey, should not close a RfA as not done when they practically cannot grant the bid. Only local bureaucrats are allowed to close a RfA or stewards where there is no local bureaucrats. Admin or any editor aside bureaucrat and steward should not close any requests that they have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. I urge steward to allow the new RfA to run for the next seven days for a clearer consensus. Warm regards. Wikicology (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the second round of voting, User:Naziah_rizvi's negative vote is declared invalid by the sitting admins because of the relatively less number of edits of this user. I urge the stewards to look into this aspect and also check if User:अनिरुद्ध! actually secures 80% votes needed for adminship. --Muzammil (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "negative vote" do you mean "oppose vote"?, if yes, I see no reason why Naziah rizvi's vote should be struck. The user has been around for over 2 years with over 300 edits. The user was granted autopatrol right which simply suggest to me that they are trustworthy. Is there any evidence of canvassing or sockpupetry? Is there a consensus on hi:Wiki that says editors must have made a certain number of edits to be eligible to vote at RfA? It is ridiculous to invalidate their vote on the basis of the fact that they didn't have 1000+ edits and I suggest their votes should be reinstated. Wikicology (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think false information is given by User:YmKavishwar. In the first round of voting (ran between 4-16 July), User:अनिरुद्ध! has not been secures 80% votes needed for adminship (7 vote for support and 3 vote for against). I urge the stewards to look into this aspect and also check it. If this is correct, would not be allowed to the next round. With warm regards.Mala chaubey (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Sir, after the next RFA that it will be the start of a new tradition on hindi wikipedia.Mala chaubey (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mala chaubey, may I respectfully ask you why you close a debate in which you !voted? And subsequently blocked User:YmKavishwar when your action was questioned? Thank you. Wikicology (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:YmKavishwar,all sysop of hindi wikipedia was involved in discussion, so according to rule after seven days I close it, because User:अनिरुद्ध! could not secure the much needed 80% votes. If I was wrong, you should keep this question there. but you have rollback my edit. why? As per rule, after three warnings that I was temporarily blocked (only for three days) you. I am sorry for the inconvenience.Mala chaubey (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology Sir, My answer is contained in the above statement. with warm regards.Mala chaubey (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It is always a good idea to allow an uninvolved party to close such debate , preferably a bureaucrat or stewards in the case of hi:Wiki where there is no bureaucrat. I do hope you will take this into consideration in the future. Keep up the good work. Wikicology (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
July 23 has started in India about an hour back. So in after 24 hours from now, a decision on the admin poll can be declared by a steward here. --Muzammil (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikicology, Till about One year ago अनिरुद्ध was an active admin on Hindi Wikipedia. Growing demand of personal development work I could not able to involve in Hindi Wikipedia admin work. My admin membership had removed. It was not wrong decision. When this concept was accepted on hindi Wikipedia it was general view that when previous admin who has more than 5000 edit, will active and asked for admin right it will be given if he don’t obtain distinct apposition. Yogesh had made proposal for अनिरुद्ध!’s admin right removal. After seeing active he made proposal to make me admin again. I have accepted and give assurance for next two year for being active. It should not treat as new admin proposal but it should be seen in continuity of my previous admin work. This fact also should keep in mind that अनिरुद्ध! Is the only screen reader user and has ability to check accessibility of Hindi Wikipedia. I don’t know why out of six only one Hindi wiki admin is not able to understand the value of increasing of member or admin. If I will inactive I can be removed again. Hindi wiki will gain instead of losing anything with my admin status. I haven’t asked for admin right again but if some responsible member want this why should I or other should oppose this. In 7 year wiki experience I am seeing 1st time that being reactive is a negative thing. अनिरुद्ध! (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is one of Wikipedia's core principle. If there is a consensus to promote you, I doubt any admin or steward will override it. Just stay calm and keep up the good work. Wikicology (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicology Mala chaubey is representing the facts in her own manner and out of 5 active admins, she is the only who is in oppose of this RfA, as far as Naziah rizvi's invalid vote is concerned it was not due to her 300+ edit but due to a rule applied on hi.wiki with full consensus that if a user shows a tendency to show his/her activity mostly on voting in favour or oppose, his/her vote will be declared as INVALID. Her contributions shows that she rarely becomes active and most of the time after becoming active the first thing she do is to VOTE. Point to be noted that before giving her vote she was inactive for almost one year and this isn't the first time prior to this in year 2015-14 she was also inactive for nearly one year and came only to vote.---चक्रपाणी (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikicology and Ruslik0: The above RFA should have been presented by a neutral Admin but unfortunately this did not happen. Now, when this is presented here, I request request the Stewards to decide the results by using their own discretion. I have tabulated the present situation here for Steward's perusal and I have also requested चक्रपाणी to restore the vote in question as it is not his call to declare such things. Thanks in advance! --Satyam Mishra --talk-- 08:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have request to steward please explain whats saven days rule for RFA, what purpose for that and if in some cases purpose not fulfill so we are carri forword discussion or not ?

In this case (in first RFA) i hzve nominated user:अनिरुद्ध! as a admin at 4 july 2016, 5:08pm (IST). But nominated user accept this nomination after 6 days date of nomination. (10. July 2016, 1:49pm (IST).) So discussion started after user accept this nomination. Admin user:Mala chaubey closed that discussion prematurely. I have requested her to please extend but she can not. So stewards please describe purpose of saven days rule. Maybe after she understand. Thanks.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on the RfA page. Sometimes, a RfA may remain open for more than seven days and its closure will depend on weather there is a clear consensus to promote or not. Wikicology (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. Thanks sir, But she said 'rule is rule. Any vote not valid after saven days of nomination.' As my view point purpose of saven days rule RFA became mature. Some cases we will extend discussion more days.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since more than seven days have passed by, I request a steward to kindly decide the matter. Thanks!--Muzammil (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the rule is that the user needs to get at least 80% of support 9 pro/3 against makes 75% so unless I'm mistaken this should be closed as no consensus. —MarcoAurelio 14:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcoAurelio:, its true. As per rule need 80% support. Now nominated user voted so 10/3 vote. Also as per rule against voter Naziah rizvi's vote is not valid. Bcoz she is not active contributor since 2014. In 2014, 2015, 2016 she come here only for make vote. As per rule if user not active contributor and come here only for voting so his/her vote is not valid. So decide and solv this matter. Also one of rule admin's and reviewer's vote more valuable. 3 admin and 3 reviewer for support and one admin and one reviewer vote for against. So please decide.-Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, consensus to promote not reached according to local policy: hi:विकिपीडिया:प्रबन्धक, which requires at least 80% support. —MarcoAurelio 08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jogi don@sdwikipedia

Status:    Not done

This was wrongly posted. I just fixed it. Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not see any new vote. Ruslik (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stalled; marking as not done. Please feel free to add a new request when ready. ~ Nahid Talk 19:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indusian1236@sdwikipedia

Status:    On hold

This was wrongly posted. I just fixed it. Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold till 27 July 2016. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can the nominee comment on their block on Commons? Ruslik (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjastrikers@mywiktionary

Status:    Done

There is no local admin on Burmese Wiktionary. I am also a sysop on Burmese Wikipedia and I would like to request for adminship on mywiktionary to maintain the project. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 07:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2016-10-27. To prolong your (interface) adminship, please start another election a few days before your temporary access expires, and after a week post your request again to this page. Thanks. Ruslik (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat access

See Bureaucrat for information about this user group.
  • In principle, requests for temporary bureaucrat access are not granted.
  • A small project does not need bureaucrats. Currently whether a promotion is valid or not is decided by stewards. See here for a guideline.

Requests for removal of access should be posted at the section below.

CheckUser access

See CheckUser policy for information about this user group and the policy governing the use of this tool.
  • To request CheckUser information, see Steward requests/Checkuser. This is the place to request CheckUser access.
  • One-time CheckUser access is not permitted and temporary access is only used by Stewards or when the mandate of the CUs has an expiry date specified in local policies.


Oversight access

See Oversight policy for information about this user group and the policy governing the use of this tool.
  • To request to have content oversighted, ask for a steward in #wikimedia-stewardsconnect and contact a steward privately. This section is for requesting access to the Oversight tool.
  • For contact details about oversighters across the wikis, refer to this page.
  • Note that temporary Oversight access is not permitted and temporary status is only used by Stewards .
  • When a new user is assigned to this group, please add them to this list.

Removal of access

  • If you're requesting the removal of your own permissions, make sure you're logged in to your account. If you have multiple flags, specify which you want removed. Stewards may delay your request a short time to ensure you have time to rethink your request (see previous discussion on 24 hour delays); the rights will not be restored by stewards once they are removed.
  • To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, provide a link to the discussion, with a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion. However, as bureaucrats of some wikis may remove users from the administrator or bureaucrat group, please see also a separate list of these specific wikis.
  • To request the removal of another user's permissions for inactivity, link to your local inactivity policy. If your site does not have inactivity policy, the global policy Admin activity review applies.
  • See the instructions above for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.

Amonet@sk.wikipedia

Status:    On hold

I ask to remove sysop flag on skwiki for Amonet. Reason: per local rule: she does not have edit in articles for last 4 months. Vasiľ (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
"Za neaktívneho správcu sa považuje taký správca, ktorý nevykonal žiadny správcovský úkon za posledné 4 kalendárne mesiace.". Does it mean that an admin who didn't perform any admin actions for last 4 months will lose their admin access?--Stryn (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whole section is:
  • Správcovi, ktorý je neaktívny ako správca alebo ako redaktor stewardi odoberú správcovské právomoci. (translation: Sysop which is not active as a sysop or a user will stewards removed sysop acces.)
  • Za neaktívneho správcu sa považuje taký správca, ktorý nevykonal žiadny správcovský úkon za posledné 4 kalendárne mesiace. (translation: Not active sysop is sysop, which did no performed sysop edit in last 4 months)
  • Za neaktívneho redaktora sa považuje taký redaktor, ktorý nevykonal žiadnu úpravu v hlavnom mennom priestore za posledné 4 kalendárne mesiace. (translation: Not active user is user, which did no performed edit in articles in last 4 months)
In this case it is removal of sysop flag, because sysop is inactive as a user. Vasiľ (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something missing in this request? Vasiľ (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the user in question deleted a page on March 30. Wouldn't that extend the period until July 30? MBisanz talk 03:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she performed deletion. But she did not performed edit in articles since March 16. In rule on sk wiki (part of it I translated here) is written, that steward will removed sysop flag if:
user did not performed sysop action for 4 months or (it means en:Logical disjunction, not en:Logical conjunction)
user did not performed edit in articles for 4 month.
This second option is valid in case of Amonet. Vasiľ (talk) 07:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vasiľ: Is there a community consensus for approving that policy? Most of the inactivity policy require user being notified regarding the removal. I don't see any notification at the user's talk page. ~ Nahid Talk 08:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sk:Wikipédia:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch is valid rule of sk wiki, which was approved in sk:Diskusia k Wikipédii:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch#Hlasovanie.
In rule is written: "O odobratie právomoci správcovi, ktorý spĺňa stanovené kritériá na jej odobratie, môže stewardov požiadať ktorýkoľvek redaktor, ako keby o odobratie práv požiadal správca sám." Which means, that anyone can ask stewards to remove sysop flag, if sysop has reach criteria for removal of sysop acces.
There is no obligation to notify Amonet. Vasiľ (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, As we have some bad experience regarding this type of confusion, I believe it'd be better to have another user's comment from skwik and I just asked the only bureaucrat of skwiki for second opinion. ~ Nahid Talk 10:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Few years ago wasn't problem with such a request [1], [2]. But OK, I unterstand that you need to check it. I saw your question on sk. Vasiľ (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is this rule on skwiki: if sysop did not performed any edit in articles for 4 month or did not performed any sysop action for 4 months, stewards will remove his sysop permissions. Vasiľ is right. --Exestosik (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit perplex about this request. This comment "Yes, she performed deletion. But she did not performed edit in articles" is concerning. Is a deletion not an edit? The user deleted a page on March 30 as MBisanz rightfully pointed out. Do you mean in sk:Wiki, a page deletion does not count as edit? Is the now deleted page, Gottfrid Svartholm not in mainspace when it was deleted? If a page deletion at sk:Wiki is not an edit, can we see that policy? I am sorry, such policy is illogical if it exist at all. Wikicology (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Slovak rule has 3 points about inactivity of admins (sk:Wikipédia:Pravidlá/Pravidlo o správcoch#Nezáujem o výkon funkcie).
Briefly:
  1. Stewards will removed admin flag to admin which is no longer active as a admin or a user.
  2. Inactive admin is admin which did not performed admin edit in last 4 months.
  3. Inactive user is user which did not performed edit in article in last 4 months.
In this case last edit in article is 16.6. 2016. So it means, that Amonet is inactive a a user. No confusion, just following rule on sk. Yes, rule divided edits into 2 groups. Vasiľ (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you agree that a page deletion is an edit and admin action, I am struggling to see how July 16 is the removal date considering the fact that the user deleted a page on March 30. I think common sense applies here. If I may ask, what harm does it cause the project (sk:wiki) if we wait till July 30? There is no abuse of tool here and I don't see any damage to the project , thus I see no reason for the hasty removal of tool. Wikicology (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the (partially confusing) wording of the rule actually indicates, that July 16 can be the removal date, I encourage stewards to hold until July 30, which is just few more days and is the no-doubt removal date.
— Danny B. 16:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Rule is clear in this case. Аs a man, which understand Slovak language you know it. No doubth removal date is Jule 16, as rule obviously states. Vasiľ (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the user is really inactive, then couple more days won't do any harm...
— Danny B. 16:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Conditions are obvious. Vasiľ (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vasiľ: Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and rules are not the purpose of the community. Wikicology (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean, that you should question my request as you did. This request is based on rule and custom on sk (see previous requests on meta: 1, 2, 3, 4). Vasiľ (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no much similarity between the previous requests and this and that is why your request here have not been granted. The only similarity I see is that a request was made. One or two editors have told you already that July 30 should be the removal date. If I were you, I will wait. Is there any reason why you can't wait? Are you going to retire from Wikipedia before July 30? The goal of Wikipedia is to build a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. More importantly, you have not pointed to a single harm that this will cause the project if we wait till July 30. Wikicology (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is similarity, because all of request are based on the same rule. One or two editor are wrong, so that is not a valid point. Reason is that my request is correct and is following valid rule which was agreed on consensus on sk. There are 2 conditions which can lead in request such a this. If user is in one in these categories (it is not necessary to be in both of them), my request is correct. So my request is right. Vasiľ (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this for a steward to decide. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, while the rule may indeed not require a notification per se, I believe that it is common courtesy to notify the user in question. The other thing is that the request was not discussed, actually, not even mentioned on sk.wiki. My big thanks goes to user Juandev who mentioned this on Amonet's discussion page (that is how I found out about the matter). However, this should have been done by Vasiľ as he requested the desysop here on meta. Considering these circumstances, the fact that Amonet has not done any harmful edits and the additional dispute whether a deletion counts as an edit, I would strongly urge not to desysop until the 30 July. Thank you!--Jetam2 (talk) 09:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can read and understand Slovak. So our rule on sk is in this case clear and simple. Since June 16 anyone can ask stewards to remove sysop flag of Amonet. Thats all. Other thing you mentioned are just empty words. Request in because of inactivity, not because on her wrong (for example) edits. Vasiľ (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Vasiľ. There is a clear distinction between "sysop action" and "editing action" and local sysop policy at skwiki requires activity in terms of both types of actions. Page deletion (even in NS 0) clearly is a sysop action, not an editing action. There is no doubt, I believe, that formal conditions for desysop due to inactivity had been fulfilled as per July 16. --Teslaton (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that there is now va discussion about the matter on Slovak Wikipedia.--Jetam2 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possible future changes to the policy (inactivity periods; obligation of notification about desysop request on the sysop's talk page; etc.), but the current wording is quite clear. --Teslaton (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dobrý večer. Som byrokrat na Slovenskej Wikipédii. User:NahidSultan ma vyzval, aby som reagovala na vzniknutú situáciu. Správkyňa Amonet sa počas aktívneho pôsobenia nespreneverila svojej funkcii, vždy vystupovala korektne a slušne. Myslím si, že aj od nás bude korektné, ak proces odobratia práv správcu prebehne po 30. júli 2016, kedy uplynú štyri mesiace od jej poslednej správcovskej aktivity: 18:49, 30. marec 2016 Amonet (Diskusia | príspevky | zablokovať) zmazal stránku Gottfrid Svartholm (Experimenty) (zobraziť/obnoviť). Ospravedlňujem sa za slovenčinu, prípadne môj príspevok môže preložiť do angličtiny niektorý z našich redaktorov. Ďakujem. --Bubamara (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Translation of the above) "Good evening. I am a bureaucrat on Slovak Wikipedia. User User:NahidSultan asked me to comment on the situation. Admin Amonet has not abused her position during her active involvement, she has always acted correctly and politely. I think that it would be correct of us if the process of removing her sysop rights takes place after the 30th of July when four months since her last admin activity will have passed. 18:49, 30. marec 2016 Amonet (Diskusia | príspevky | zablokovať) zmazal stránku Gottfrid Svartholm (Experimenty) (zobraziť/obnoviť) My apologies for writing in Slovak, perhaps one of our editors can translate my contribution to English. Thank you."--Jetam2 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bubamara writes which is not true. I quite can agree, that Amonet has as sysop no problems. But our rule is in case on inactivity clear. Since Jule 16 2016 stewards should remove her sysop flag. Other words, like date July 30 are misleading and against rule on sk. Vasiľ (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what does your dogged demand for a desysop of Amonet to do with the creation of an encyclopaedia ?? -jkb- 07:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 On hold I've done some research about the policy and found out that there is no indication whether deletion should count as edit or not. Since it is a valid point and we have some doubts regarding the date, it's best to wait few more days (Like some of you pointed above, there's no harm in it). I'm holding this request till 30th of July. Thanks. ~ Nahid Talk 08:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Slovak rule about admin exists clear distinction between logged actions (like deletions and block) and user edits (for this rule we counted only edits in articles). So there is no confusion.
But I understand, that you do not know Slovak language, so your opinion is based on Bubamara's. It is shame that she is not telling truth about our rule. Vasiľ (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't bludgeon the process. Wikicology (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vasiľ, I think what Wikicology is trying to tell you is this: The very fact that you are so worried about whether this closes July 23 or July 30 makes an uninvolved observer (like me) suspicious that you have a personal agenda here. You will be far more likely to get the outcome you want by being patient and waiting until July 30. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is fact, that this request is based on our rule, nothing more. The date is Jule 16, as I wrote. This is in our rule, that all. Vasiľ (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pjacobi@de.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Please remove my sysop flag. I've been inactive since a long time. It's time to stop pretending that this will change.

--Pjacobi (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank You. masti <talk>

Schreiber@de.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Odeesi (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be done by users themselves. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove my admin permissions. Thanks for your help!--Schreiber (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Duende@de.wikipedia

Status:    Not done

Odeesi (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be done by users themselves. —DerHexer (Talk) 22:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous requests

Requests for permissions that don't fit in other sections belong here. Importer rights can be granted on most wikis by stewards only. Please gain local community consensus before posting a new section here.

Note that the following types of permissions requests belong on separate pages:

  • SRB — Local or global bot status
  • SRGP — Global permissions

See also

Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Permissions&oldid=15799360"