Steward requests/Permissions

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

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

Steward requests/Permissions/Sysop-header

This would have been a temporary admin appointment, but [3] for edit warring. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

But... Aldar is the only active native spiker in our wiki, and we need his adminship. And block in other wiki is not the reason for the refusal. For example, I am also permanently blocked in the Russian wiki. So what? I became the administrator of the Buryat wiki, raised activity, brought to the 1000 articles, invited users. Now we have 50 active users and 1115 articles. Thanks for permanently blocked in the Russian wiki man (me). So think.--Gubin (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like some input from my colleagues, which is why I haven't marked this request as not done, but the personal attack and vandalism on another user's page that I've linked to which took place during this very RfA is most troubling to me. This is not appropriate for an administrator. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not sure if the users that participated in the rfa were aware of this. How about notify them about it and see if the community has any opinion? --Bencmq (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

By the way, I just took a look to the two last accounts who voted, and they are obviously not members of this community, judging on their creation date and their number of edits. Some voting accounts were obviously created to vote, and when you know that Губин Михаил, who is making this request, was involved in sockpuppets abuse and canvassing and tried to get adminship on several projects this way, you can't endorse such a request... -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I want to become an admin on this wiki as no admins are active. I want to bring major changes to this wiki as it is very outdated. --Ushau97 (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

On hold until 4 January 2013. Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

Currently we have 3 permanent sysops but are no longer active, Tranminh360 is a user that has been very active over the last 3 years and significantly contribute to the Wikisource project of Vietnamese community. We want him to be our permanent sysop not temporary one.Trongphu (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand how you feel but I do not think that there's enough support for a permanent sysop in that election. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2013年07月02日. 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. -- Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

You know it's annoying that he has to keep coming back here every 6 months to prolong his adminship? How many votes does he need to become a permanent sysop? This user from last year only got 8 votes and still became permanent sysop at vi.wikisource.Trongphu (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Honestly, each steward uses a slightly different metric. Personally, I go for temporary for everything below 5 supports from active community members on the specific project. This is however a ballpark figure, and there's not an exact yardstick, I'm afraid. Sorry. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Doesn't seem fair to me. (I only has "3 votes" that made me become sysop of vi.wiktionary, well mainly because I'm a trusted user with great contribution from vi.Wikipedia) He got 10 votes now compare to 8 votes from User Mxn who became permanent sysop. PLease explain this? 10 votes obviously bigger than 8. Why can't he become a permanent sysop? Seriously, he as more contribution than all of the current 3 permanent sysops combined. I can't think of someone he deserves it more than him. I believe he will continue to take care of the project for at least few years from now according to his contribution over the last 3 years. So is that mean over the next few years, he just have to come back here and ask to prolong his adminship every 6 months? That's ridiculous. And are you trying to make a point that those votes are not from active users? Well that was the same deal with a person with 8 votes. Plus let me make a point here, Tranminh360 is pretty much the active loner on Wikisource. All the users that voted for him "all come from Wikipedia with significant contribution there", you can check it! It's not like some random newly users that cast the votes. They were all asked to vote for him and they all knew him somewhat through Wikipedia and trusted him and wanted him to be sysop. That's 10 votes from 10 active users from Vietnamese Wikipedia, many have thousands of edits. In Vietnamese community, we consider ourselves as 1 unit. So that's mean users from Wikipedia are just as same as users from Wikisource, Wiktionary, Wikibook... Personally I think temporary is stupid (no offend intended, if you trust him to become sysop then why only trust him for 6 months?). You should not judge on how many users are there in the community (it's irrelevant to whether or not he can be a good sysop) but you should judge on how great the contribution of an user (merit system always the best). You may argue a sysop is not needed for such a small project like vi.wikisource but as long as there is someone willing to work on it then I think sysop tools will always be needed sometimes. Why can't he just rely on global sysop or steward to do it? Simply answer is that in Vietnamese, we like to work by our own effort without relying on outsiders (doesn't mean we don't like to cooperate with outsiders). That is an old strong tradition. Sorry this rather looks like a long boring lecture, but I think I really disagree over your policy on sysop and trying to express my opinion. I'm not saying that my opinion is the best.Trongphu (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

To further proving my point here is another example, look at Farewell@vi.wikiquote, with only 2 votes from non-active users at vi.wikiquote. I guess other steward value merit more than you (no offend intended).Trongphu (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Bringing up an even older example is silly (and no steward would promote that user permanently today), if you want we can bring up examples for even before where no community vote or consensus was enough to grant permanent adminship at a steward's discretion :P Temporary adminship simply means that a user has to drop a note to the community every now and again and notify us that he's still active. No big deal. It's there to ensure that people are still active and retain the confidence of the community. You seem to be under this assumption that a temporary sysop is not 'trusted'. He is trusted, whether he is temporary or permanent is merely a judgement on the community's size. And while it's great that according to you there's great cooperation between the Vietnamese sister projects, each project has its own active userbase, and activity on project X doesn't make us one expert on project Y's internal matters. So no, with my meter, the promotion to permanent done in 2011 was perfect, just as the one to temporary right now has been. It's likely that at the next reconfirmation it will be extended to a yearly one anyway given the level of involvement. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Well so is that mean he will never become permanent sysop even after many years from now? I don't think there should be a correlation between community size and lifespan of adminship, there aren't related issues. The matter that if he will still be active in the future or not can't simply be solve by granting temporary sysop. Permanent sysop or temporary sysop both have the right to stop being active whenever they want or maybe something happened in their real life so they have to stop doing it. You're right that each project has its own userbase but activity on all projects are pretty much the same thing (there is a little difference but not significant). I brought up some examples 2010 and 2011 because I don't think adminship policy has changed since 2010 (I do know sysops were super easy to get back in 2005 to 2007). Well you maybe right that stewards are being "more" picky over time (is that a good thing? Maybe yes or maybe not...). Just to be clear on something, there isn't a great cooperation between Vietnamese sister projects but user of each project does care about each others. We will involve in any sister project when there is something important like Rfa, issues and so on... Last question, what was perfect about the example of 2011 permanent sysop? To your definition of perfect then this one is even more perfect! (By the way, the votes have increased to 14, he can get a lot more votes if necessary. I can always call in more active users from vi.wikipedia. Everyone in Vietnamese Wikipedia as the whole simply just want him to be our permanent sysop.) Trongphu (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm guessing this discussion is not going anywhere. You are just too adamant on your belief on temporary sysop. I'm still think it is a bad idea to even have such a temporary sysop. We can agree to disagree then. Since you're steward and I'm not anywhere close to that so obviously you have more power so of course things will be the way you want it. User Tranminh360 seems being satisfy with being temporary sysop. I guess there is no reason for me to discussion here anymore but after all I feel like it is unfair for him. After all you haven't clearly explained to me the difference between 2011 permanent sysop and 2012 temporary sysop (the 2012 is obviously better in votes, why is it that 2012 ended up temporary?). Enjoy being steward sir!Trongphu (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

The 2011 had more votes from active local users than the 2012 one :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Request for adminship.

Hello, I think this is for the fifth time I make a request. Since beginning I was the only real luxemburgish native speaking member. I am an administrator on Wikpedia:lb since five years, and I don't understand why on wiktionary I'm only granted for temporary adminship. If I'm not active, there is no native luxemburgish speaking user. I don't do this work because I have nothing else to do, but as I was requestet to save the lb: Wiktionary. If you know someone who can do this work better, you may name hime as an administrator. I will never more ask for temporary adminship and continue this requests every six months, like a little boy who asks for gifts. I let you be the judge if an adminship is usefull or not. Best regards --Les Meloures (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Well I think I would agree with this Les Meloures user, especially like the saying: "I will never more ask for temporary adminship and continue this requests every six months, like a little boy who asks for gifts." Or that would look like a puppet or beggar that ask for sysop every 6 months. Trusted users should be trusted and treated with more respect in my opinion. Their contribution are obvious very valuable.Trongphu (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

For the moment the IP 94.224.1.254 is creating wrong, and misswritten articles. As I am no more an admin I cannot delete and actually nobody of all stewards is able to verify what is wrong and what not. I was 15 days in hospital and in this time I could not verify. Afterwards i had a job for ten days to correct. Please hurry up with adminship otherwise the lb:wiktionaty will have bad future. --Les Meloures (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please start a discussion on a central community page (such as the Village Pump), even if the wiki is inactive, and leave it open for at least seven days. Then provide the link to this discussion in the "discussion=" box above. If there are no objections to your adminship after that period, stewards will consider temporary adminship, but these steps must be followed first. The local community must be given an opportunity to voice their opinions before we decide the outcome. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

This discussion on a central community page for adminship was done allready once on this page, in June and the stewards were informed. Bur I think nobody noticed, an again nobody notices that the lb: community is very little and rather without permanent users. But it grows step by step and the saving of the project needed hundreds of hours, done by less than 3 users. The problem is this: If there is no permanent survey by an admin than lb.wiki will become the playstation op a lot of IP-users, as you may see again on the activities today. Best regards --Les Meloures (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand what Les Meloures says and I think we could make an effort, even if it's contrary to our principles. I helped him to start this wiki and know that he is wise and trustable. The best compromise would be, in my humble opinion, to grant a very long delay of temporary adminship, such as two years. What do you (Les Meloures and other stewards) think about it ?

I thought about something to help the luxembourgish community to grow up, because you're the only contributor on this project right now. What abouting welcoming users who contribute for the first time and offering them your help, thanking users who made a good contribution, etc. ? This is done on lots of projects and would not be a waste of time. Regards, -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I dont know what can help the community to grow up. Actually two users are working.Some IP-adresses and specially one of the flamish region takes the lb wiktionary as his own playstation. He does experiments in all possible language that we are not able to control, and he does so many mistakes, and so more than 60% of his contributions must be deleted. A weekly survey with noticing other steward to delete is not the best solution. On the request to 3 years ago to help saving lb.Wiktionary I agreed, and a lot of cleaning up was done. A young user helped for some months, but actually he is busy on his studium, but still remains interested. If lb Wiktionary should be considered as as trustworthy there must be no articles that are not controlable and verified by an nativ speaker, and for foreign languages there should exist interwiki to confirm. I do this controls since beginning of the request. As I am a confirmed admin on lb.Wikipedia since 5 years, I don't understand the problem for giving an adminship for longer time. I am an 62 years old man, intrested on helping to grow this project, but i am not willing every 6 months to repeat the same litany to have adminship. Best regards --Les Meloures (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

OK. No problem for me, as I said above. Waiting the opinion of other stewards, I want to have your point of view on this MediaWiki extension, which could help you to review the articles. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 12:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm shure that this tool maybe very usefull, for big wikis. It is used on lb.wikipedia and helps to localise rapidly new articles without revision. As it seems only two of the admnins know how it works, and the community was never informed how it works. You must know that users on little wikis, even if they are admins and very usefull to that wiki, don't surf on every project, and a lot of them don't understand english enough to follow every details and explications. --Les Meloures (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

No need to understand english... It has been translated in French long ago, and as far as I know most of the luxembourgish people speak french... Also, you can translate it in the project's language if you need. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Per local discussion, 3 months temp. adminship. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2013年04月05日. -- Menti fisto 09:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done, please ask your local bureaucrat. --Bencmq (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

After the week of community voting user has over 78 per cent support. Project does not have local sysops and crats.Anatoliy (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2013年04月05日. Many of the people who commented in that discussion are not native to uk.wikinews, and as such the project is currently not big enough to warrant permanent administrators. Please ask Base to re-request here before the expiry of his adminship if he wants to prolong it. Many thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Shall I then just re-request, or it needs a new discussion? --Base (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Maybe just drop a courtesy note about a week before the adminship is set to expire, just to inform people you intend to prolong your adminship. This is usually a formality but it does give people a chance to comment if they wish. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

I have granted Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton temporary adminship to assist with the construction of ptwikivoyage, to expire 05 February 2013. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Sir; User:Sasakubo1717's adminship in that project was expired and he accepted me in my talkpage in th.wikipedia already so I nominated him again. Thank you. --B20180 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Sir; User:Sasakubo1717 nominated adminship for User:Nullzero and User:Nullzero accept from User:Sasakubo1717's request in User:Nullzero's talkpage in this project already. Thank you. --B20180 (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Sir; User:Sasakubo1717's adminship in that project was expired and him accepted me in my talkpage in th.wikipedia already so I nominated him again. Thank you. --B20180 (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Sir; User:Sasakubo1717's have experience in wiktionary, wikibooks and wikiquote before and him accepted me in my talkpage in th.wikipedia already so I nominated him to have sysop right in this project. Thank you. --B20180 (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward requests/Permissions/Crat-header

Steward requests/Permissions/CU-header

I summarize issue. On 15 July 2012, 4 users blocked by 5 administarator because of be a troll. Then community of Turkish Wikipedia against these blockings and the majority of the community started Rfc. however nothings happened and unfair blockings didn't unblock and I try to unblock these 4 blockingns (21 users support and 1 user neutral for unblocking of users). Firstly, tr:User:Kibele reblocked these users and then tr:User:Vito Genovese blocked me indefinetely. So I don't want to be administrator no more. Please remove my access. Thank you and best regards and sorry for my bad English. Also you can see my answer and you can see my first approve of removal of access because of this issue. --Reality 20:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

On hold for 24 hours. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

I kindly ask this to be kept on hold for a longer period of time. Again the issues on the local wiki are the reason behind this and those should really be resolved first. If user still wants to resign at that point, it is fine then. Right now this is an emotional response unhelpful to tr.wikipedia. -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 14:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

• I agree to User:とある白い猫's proposal. On November 27, 2012, tr:User:Reality006 (User talk:Reality006) was blocked indefinitely by tr:User:Vito Genovese (User talk:Vito Genovese). However, in this case, User:Vito Genovese abused INVOLVED . Takabeg (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC) [reply ]

Progress report? Ok, this looks kinda dramatic/complex, but it's well over a month this request was posted. Any progress on this? Can we close as "not done" for now or Reality really wants to quit? Thanks. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment Comment I don't known whether User:Vito Genovese responded or not to this question of User:PeterSymonds in Turkish Wikipedia on 27 November 2012. Takabeg (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove my sysop rights. Thank you, --Podzemnik (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

 On hold for 24 hours to prevent a rage-quit. Trijnstel _talk 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Very sorry to see you go :-(
— Danny B. 15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done, with many thanks for your past service as an administrator. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, Peter. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags of this inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags of this inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• This wiki has active users and I believe no inactivity policy, so I do not see why this should be a Meta issue. Please try to get the local policy first.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  The communities have the power to remove admins without an inactivity policy. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  Sure, but there was no reasonable discussion. (削除) The user was not notified on-wiki (削除ここまで). I am editing that wiki every day and I am familiar with the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  Why not comment in that local discussion made by Jusjih then? --Bencmq (talk) 11:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  I somehow missed it when it started. I will comment now. However, I do not think it is a good idea when someone without any contribution in the project shows up and open a deadminship discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  What's the reason of your oppose, by the way ? I don't understand much because having inactive users with bureaucrat status could be a security issue if the account was hijacked. Anyway, there will be no problems for this user to have his flags back when he comes back if he still have the approval of the community. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

  PCode is a kind of Jimbo Wales of Chavash Wikipedia, a person who founded the project and recruited the editors himself, making it the most successfull of all projects in minor languages spoken in the former USSR. The project is active, there are at least two active admins. If they do not consider his inactivity as a problem and do not respond on the deadmin page, why should Jusjih, without any contribution to the project, single-handedly deadmin PCode? I believe insufficient efforts have been made. Try to contact the admins, ask them whether they know what is going on, they may even contact him off-wiki, ask their opinion, then may be if everybody agrees, deadmin him. But not just like this - first open the discussion, vote for deadminship, then come here and request desysop.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags of this inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Ruslik (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags of this inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Ruslik (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove both bureaucrat and administrator flags of this inactive user. --Jusjih (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Ruslik (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove administrator flag; my work with initial project-wise tasks is done, and as such I have no need for the tools. Cheers! Theopolisme _talk! 03:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done, thank you for your help! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove my admin flag. My purpose of admin flag was that; helping any Korean users for joining easily in new project. I think my work is all done here.. I don't have to have the flag. Thank you in advance :) --Sotiale (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done, best regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward requests/Permissions/Misc-header

As admin of it.wikivoyage.  Raoli  20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Steward requests/Permissions/Footer

• Steward requests