Steward requests/Permissions

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

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

Seven days ago, I announced my intention to apply for 3-month temp sysop in the Spanish Wikiversity. The project has two admins: one inactive for years and another who contributes sporadically. I aim to support the project by fixing templates, organizing sections, and removing long-standing problematic content, a task I've started with the Global Sysops. My proposal remains open for community comments, but I've received no feedback. —Meruleh {talk} 00:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, you've written "temp" is that a typo from your side ? Sarvebhyah (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Sarvebhyah. No, that is correct. My request is to serve as a temporary administrator for a period of three months. —Meruleh {talk} 20:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay. Warm Reagards, Sarvebhyah (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2025年06月24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. --Johannnes89 (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, Asenoner wishes to renew his admin rights after a year of adminship since that his admin rights expired 3 days ago (17 March). He has gained 3 votes in favour in the reconfirmation vote that lasted one week. Thanks in advance. --S4b1nuz ᴇ.656 ^(SMS) 11:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 2 years to expire on 2027年03月20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.. AramilFeraxa (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello, it's time for the administrator renewal at atj.wikipedia.org - here is the list of people who have expressed interest in being administrators for the next two years.

• Grouped discussion here : https://atj.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipetcia:Waskapiwin#Admin_atj.wp_2025-2027
• ATJ Counsil at Wikimedia Canada : https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiClub_Metapeckeka?uselang=en

Best regards and thank you in advance. Brochon99 (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Am requesting for admin ship in the above named wiki to help in making the wiki free from vandalism) Umargana1 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2025年06月24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. --Johannnes89 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I want to extend adminship & get interface adminship because there are no active administrators in our language project except me. And I am the only active editor since the section was created. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Къарачайлы (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Къарачайлы the linked discussion doesn't seem to mention interface admin. Please explicitly mention all the permissions you want to get in the local discussion, even if there are no active community members. Johannnes89 (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

done Къарачайлы (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xnet1234 (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done Granted for 3 months to expire on 2025年06月22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.. AramilFeraxa (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is my 7'th application. Thanks. SimmeD (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 On hold until 29 March. AramilFeraxa (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Log for previous adminships [1]. We'll need to wait for the mandatory 7+ days of local discussion, but given their previous daWikisource adminships and permanent daWikipedia adminship I think we could grant for 2 years if there is no local opposition to the RfA. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would like to ask a question about the Interface administrator, I applied for the Interface administrator position but it's been almost a month now, why isn't it finished yet? See ဝိက်ရှေန်နရဳ:ညးကောပ်ကာဲ--Dr.Intobesa|Talk 04:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Turgut46 ^✉ 02:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Per MVR#Bureaucrat there must be at least 15 votes (the linked discussion has 8 votes, despite announcements via trwiktionary sitenotice [2] and trwiki village pump [3]) and the community must be large enough to even need bureaucrats. With just four admins it doesn't seem like there is a need for crats at trwiktionary (which might change in the future if more admins are getting elected). --Johannnes89 (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm also not really convinced there is a need or a community large enough for local bureaucrats. For reference:

• In the last 3 years (after the previous local bureaucrat resigned) there have been two rights changes [4], one bot request and one adminship request.
• MVR has a general requirement of around 15 votes - as mentioned above there have only been eight in this case.
• There are four permanent admins on the project (three of them appointed while there was still a local bureaucrat so they are reasonably permanent), while MVR generally requires around six permanent administrators.
• Out of the 67 users who have contributed in the last 30 days only 13 have more than five edits - most of the others are either global renamers/global patrollers or non-community members.

With that being said I'm not really inclined to grant this, though I won't reject either. I'll leave to another steward to give a 2O. EPIC (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your review and detailed response. I understand the concerns regarding the size of the community and the number of votes. However, I would like to highlight a few points in favor of appointing a local bureaucrat for trwiktionary:

One of the core principles of Wikimedia projects is fostering self-sufficient local governance whenever feasible. The absence of a local bureaucrat in trwiktionary means that even minor rights changes—such as granting bot status or handling admin promotions—require the intervention of Meta stewards. While stewards play a crucial role in the broader Wikimedia ecosystem, their primary focus is on global matters, not on the day-to-day operations of individual projects.

By appointing a local bureaucrat, trwiktionary would gain the ability to handle such tasks independently, reducing the need for external intervention. This would not only streamline administrative processes but also empower the local community to take responsibility for its own affairs. In the long run, minimizing reliance on Meta for routine matters contributes to a more sustainable and efficient governance model.

Moreover, the absence of a bureaucrat can create unnecessary delays, as requests must compete for the attention of stewards managing multiple projects.

Considering these factors, granting bureaucrat status would be a step toward strengthening local autonomy and ensuring that trwiktionary can operate smoothly without external stewards.

Best regards. Turgut46 ^✉ 11:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just as a note on the point regarding absence of a local bureaucrat - one of the reasons why we are generally restrictive with granting bureaucrat rights is namely because it delays our response times for permission requests for wikis with an inactive bureaucrat. The stewards then have to contact the local bureaucrat to give them a chance to review locally and wait some time for any potential response, before proceeding with doing it ourselves. This has been the case in the past as well, e.g. [5] and [6]. EPIC (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done per EPIC and Johannes89 - the local community is too small to have a bureaucrat, moreover, the formal criteria indicated on MVR have not been met. There are not so many rights changes to put a great burden on the stewards. AramilFeraxa (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

With unanimous support and minimum number of votes surpassing the requirements in WM:CU, Johannes89 has been elected as a Meta CheckUser. M/ (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done and as a steward, there should be no further accesses to handle here. EPIC (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@EPIC As a Meta admin, are you actually allowed to do this under the homewiki policy? Leaderboard (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Leaderboard, first of all, a clear definition of home wiki could help, especially leaving out "non-content wiki" or service wikies such as meta.wiki itself. Please note that this request should also not considered controversial in any way, since votings has been regularly held and has had an unanimous result. Thanks for your consideration, --M/ (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Meta is generally seen as an exception to the homewiki policy. For requests like this, it's really not possible to completely avoid COI both as 21/34 stewards have Meta adminship and steward work is performed on Meta for the most part, and there really won't be much less of that regardless of who performs the action, and most stewards wouldn't see Meta as a home wiki, mainly because it's not a content wiki. But as M7 mentioned above there shouldn't be much controversy here either way - there was unanimous support, all requirements were met and I did not vote in the request myself. EPIC (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I didn't know that "Meta is generally seen as an exception to the homewiki policy" actually - that's new to me especially given things like Meta:MSR. Now personally I don't care who promoted the user, but this tends to be a thorny issue for quite a few people here, hence the query. Leaderboard (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah I don't think it's an unreasonable query from Leaderboard at all. //shb (t • c) 10:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Given how strictly MSR is interpreted, many stewards just run for meta admin to make sure there are no issues with any of their metawiki actions. I don't think this automatically makes meta a home wiki for the 20 stewards (out of 34) with admin permissions on this project.

But the policy never intended to include metawiki, otherwise one could easily argue that all stewards are "active community members" (= home wiki) given how often all stewards visit meta (simply for doing steward work). When I removed Steward requests/Permissions#Svartava@metawiki it would have never occurred to me that the home wiki rule might be involved (although as a self-requested removal it would have been allowed anyway). Johannnes89 (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm just randomly noticing this. I might just be pointlessly retelling ancient history, but IIRC years ago when I was still a steward we did not think that "the policy never intended to include metawiki", just because stewards answer steward requests on Meta, and every wiki where one was an admin counted as a home wiki. If there are 14 non-meta-admin stewards, this request could have been handled by one of them perfectly well without any staffing bottleneck. Sure, none of this is a big deal, but I did want to point it out. -- MF-W 00:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Done. --❄️Mykola❄️ 01:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The user has stated that he is retired and access permission can be removed --Mohanad (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Since this is part of the AAR process I think this could rather be removed by then at the same time as the other removals are performed, also considering that the user also hasn't specified that they want their rights immediately removed (and for example if they do happen to change their mind until then). I don't object to removing them by now either, though, I'll leave this up to someone else. EPIC (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The user stated that "You're right, I'm currently retired and have resigned from all my administrative permission except this one. The idea at the time was to facilitate obtaining a local bureaucratic permission for the project. This would put the project under the management of the Arabic community. It seems nothing has moved in a while. You can remove the permission if self-management of the project is no longer a goal. I'd love to talk with you." --Alaa :)..! 19:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not done for now. Since this is part of the AAR and since there are 2 days left for the AAR to be processed, the request will be implemented then. AramilFeraxa (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User is globally inactive since more than seven years and has been informed on their talk page twice. Ameisenigel (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Is there any local inactivity policy or consensus for removal? EPIC (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is no policy, so I have started a request at the RFP page. Since this is a test wiki you cannot expect much participation in such a request. --Ameisenigel (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is a bit of a complicated case - on one hand there seems to be no local inactivity policy and no participation in the linked request, on the other hand it is indeed a test wiki with no real community and I suppose removing the flag isn't that big of a deal either since it can basically be restored without prejudice. EPIC (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done after second opinions from others. @Ameisenigel: Noting that I have only removed the bureaucrat flag, since the sysop flag can be locally removed. EPIC (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Not using it. Wugapodes (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Noting that this is also part of AAR. AramilFeraxa (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done per AAR2024. AramilFeraxa (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Please remove my administrator rights at your own request.) Стефанко1982 (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done with thanks for your service. AramilFeraxa (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please remove sysop rights after 24 months of inactivity. GryffindorD (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@GryffindorD just to be sure - per your policy, the bureaucrat's access should be removed as well? AramilFeraxa (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@AramilFeraxa yes. GryffindorD (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done with thanks for their service. AramilFeraxa (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Following the discussion on Nataev's case, a decision was made to remove his status. Reason: Nataev's admission of repeated errors contradicting UCoC and other arguments, which can be found in detail in the specified case.

Kagansky (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Kagansky: In the linked discussion I see 24 supports and 16 opposes - I'm not sure this can really be considered a consensus. Is there a local policy saying otherwise? It's also unclear which rights this discussion are requesting removal of; is this only for the sysop flag, or for the bureaucrat and CU flags as well? EPIC (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear @EPIC, thank you very much for spotting the major inconsistency in this matter. Kagansky closed the discussion with a highly arbitrary interpretation of the local policy, which states that support for granting rights should be at least 70%. He reversed this and argued that since at least 70% of voters did not oppose the removal of my rights, I should lose them. I'm speechless! As per the policy, a user is awarded rights if at least 70 percent of votes support the granting of rights! We've always interpreted it to apply to the removal of rights too in the past. This is confirmed by Casual's, who is another admin on uzwiki, initial conclusion. Kagansky archived the discussion two minutes after closing it!

I reverted this and pointed out his apparent (and most likely intentional) misinterpretation of the local policy. Casual also confirmed that his conclusion was entirely wrong. However, Kagansky closed the discussion once again, archiving it in the same edit!

Additionally, please note that the removal of my rights is a critical part of an ongoing U4C investigation with massive cases of WP:MEAT, WP:CANVASS, and WP:COI that only began a few days ago. That's why every vote was closely scrutinized, with only 20 votes deemed to meet the local minimum criteria for voters (which corresponds one for one to the ruwiki criteria of "сделавшие в ней не менее одной правки в период между 30 и 60 днями до момента выдвижения кандидата и не менее одной правки на протяжении 15 дней до момента выдвижения кандидата"). Of them, 11 opposed the removal of my rights, 8 supported it, and 1 voted neutral. In other words, only 42,11 percent of the votes cast supported the removal of my rights, which is a far cry from 70 percent. That's assuming all were genuine votes devoid of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS (which is highly unlikely, since several users have contacted the U4C with evidence of such behavior). Kagansky, closely affiliated with the state-sponsored WikiStipendiya project, is jumping the gun in this situation.

I'm so glad there are layers of protections in the movement to prevent such gross violations. I was wondering how to bring up Kagansky's actions in the U4C case, but I see another user has already done it. Can I ask someone to leave a link to this discussion in the U4C page? Thank you! Nataev ^talk 22:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Kagansky, closely affiliated with the state-sponsored WikiStipendiya project, is jumping the gun in this situation. Dear Sir, please refrain from unfounded conclusions and accusations of affiliation. In the WikiStipendiya project, we both participated as partners on behalf of the Wikimedia Uzbek Language User Group. While we are on the subject, it is worth recalling that you are more connected with state projects than I am. In addition to the WikiStipendiya project, you were also separately from all Wikipedians connected with another state project of the Agency for Youth Affairs, in which no Wikipedians except you participated. If necessary, I can name the second project. But I think it is not worth it yet. Kagansky (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

By all means, Kagansky! It's public knowledge that I edited the translation of one book and reviewed the translations of two others for technical terms as part of the 1000Kitob project of the Youth Affairs Agency. In fact, during a meeting with WOULUG members and Youth Affairs Agency staff (which I remotely organized) I was told that Jimmy Wales took quite an interest in the project, and they even mentioned my contributions to him. Please note that, aside from top management, different teams run the two projects. Nataev ^talk 15:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear @EPIC:, This discussion calls for removing the bureaucrat and administrator powers. The CU powers were not discussed during the discussion, since the Uzbek Wikipedia currently really needs at least two CUs and we only have two of them. According to local requirements, when counting the votes, 8 out of 24 votes in favor and 11 out of 16 votes against were accepted. According to local rules for the election of administrators and bureaucrats, at least 70% of voters must express their confidence in the administrator or bureaucrat (Vikipediya:Administrator va rasmiyatchilarni saylash qoidalari). But in our case, only 57.89% voted for Nataev to retain these statuses, which is less than required. The relevance of the arguments of both sides of the votes was also taken into account. If we look at the validity of the votes, then those who voted for not preserving the statuses emphasized Natayev's mistakes, and those who voted for preserving the statuses did not provide counterarguments, they mainly expressed personal opinions that did not correspond to any local criteria. There were cases of meetpuppeting among the voters. Some of them were blocked and their votes were not counted. Just a few days ago I became aware of meetpuppeting for voting against the discussion. In this regard, it was finally proposed to immediately open a discussion about matpuppets to identify them. Thank you! Kagansky (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

57.89% voted for Nataev to retain these statuses is NOT the same as "57.89% voted AGAINST the removal of rights! Out of curiosity, I asked ChatGTP whether my statement above was right, and here's there response I got:

Yes, you are correct! "57.89% voted for Nataev to retain these statuses" means that this percentage of voters actively supported keeping the statuses. "57.89% voted AGAINST the removal of rights" implies that they were explicitly rejecting a proposal to remove the rights, which may not be the same as supporting retention. The distinction lies in the framing: voting for retaining a status is not necessarily the same as voting against its removal, especially if the ballot options or voter motivations are nuanced.

I'm baffled by this inept attempt at gross policy violation. Nataev ^talk 23:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please note that this rule regulates only the election of administrators and bureaucrats and not the deprivation of their statuses. Deprivation of statuses is not standardized in UzWiki in the same way, with percentages. In this regard, attention was paid to the trust of users + relevance of arguments and 70%. Kagansky (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You wrote, Deprivation of statuses is not standardized, yet you also stated, attention was paid to the trust of users + relevance of arguments and 70%. If status removal isn’t standardized and therefore doesn’t apply, according to your argument, why are you citing the 70% rule?

We've always applied the same criteria to both granting and removing rights. That means a right is granted if 70% of eligible votes support it and removed if 70% support its revocation.

Additionally, I want to highlight that your decision to close the discussion constitutes a CoI, as you were the first to establish contact with the Youth Affairs Agency of Uzbekistan to discuss launching the project. I, on the other hand, have been a vocal critic of it. The other two bureaucrats, Abdulla and Malikxan, who have no connection to WikiStipendiya, have yet to comment Nataev ^talk 14:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear @EPIC: Kagansky's interpretation is completely wrong. This was also noted by another experienced admin, Casual, besides Nataev. Mirishkorlik (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As an administrator, Casual has made several mistakes and has acknowledged them. However, the fact that she shares Nataev's opinion does not necessarily prove that her stance is correct. Panpanchik (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Dear @EPIC:. The votes in the discussion were cast based on concrete facts and diff links. If you take a look, you'll notice that some opposing votes don't even have an explanation, while others refer to matters unrelated to Wikipedia. The situation is truly unfortunate. The UCoC community is also on the verge of launching an investigation into this matter. Additionally, there are reports that some users were pressured to vote against. I can send you the evidence via email. Panpanchik (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please note this discussion has been ongoing for several days with much vote hunting. Laziz Baxtiyorov’s and Jamshid’s students from wikicamps voted one after another before the voting ended, and then it was closed. Some kept voting even after the voting period ended, voting in succession in the span of a few hours (from here till here). Therefore, only global administrators can resolve this issue. MirzoUlug'Bek 👤💬 03:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you very much for enlightening everyone here about the mass voting on March 24. It is also worth noting that these votes were not taken into account when summing up the results, since according to the rules the discussion period ended the day before on March 23. (Administratorlarni saylash qoidalari). For information, both participants participated in the 4th season of. Then they participated under the username Zahro designer (now Abilqosimova) and Wxyzer (now OneAzimov). If you remember, in that Wikicamp, administrators were not assigned to one specific group and students. So I doubt that they can call anyone students and build their assumptions around this contrary to the facts. Kagansky (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Kagansky improperly closed the local discussion. Ignoring the votes of other members who trust Nataev risks fostering distrust within the Uzbek Wikipedia community. Even among those who voted against him (votes that I believe were influenced by MEAT based on evidence on wiki and shared with me over email) you can still find recognition of Nataev's experience and sincere apologies. Is the goal here punishment, or, as the UCoC states, to "practice empathy"? I wasn’t aware of the UCoC before, but we could all benefit from understanding it rather than using it selectively to penalize those we disagree with. Losing Nataev would be a major setback for Uzbek Wikipedia, as he has consistently fought for the project's success. Alpasli (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nataev is one of the dedicated administrators of the Uzbek Wikipedia with extensive experience. I am against his deprivation of administrative rights. Some users who want it to be punished are users who have been chronically abusing their rights. Umarxon III (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply ]

Dear EPIC and other stewards. I want to point out to you that even in this discussion, they are committing meatpuppetry. As the person who opened the inquiry at UCoC, I can confirm that Nataev is a highly experienced administrator who has been participating in various WMF events for many years. Drawing on this knowledge and experience, he is very adept at confusing situations and manipulating others. Please review the facts carefully. If you need any information, I am ready to provide all the assistance at my disposal to help you reach an impartial conclusion. Kamol Azzam (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As a note to other stewards viewing this request I suggest to be careful with this one at the moment, both since the interpretion of the local policy seems unclear, and considering the currently ongoing U4C case along with the circumstances around it. EPIC (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just acknowledging that the U4C is aware of (and watching) this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I voluntarily request the release of my rights as an administrator on Uzbek Wikipedia. Thank you. --Casual (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply ]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe my words may not carry much weight in this case, but I'm so, so disappointed! Dear @Casual:, may I ask you to reconsider your decision? You're one of the most experienced and fair admins on our wiki. I suspect your decision was influenced by the chaos unfolding in our community, but I'd hate to see a qualified admin step down because of the actions of new users (WikiStipendiya participants) who joined the movement just for cash prizes. Please, please reconsider. Nataev ^talk 22:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was really surprised to hear about your decision. If you leave, Uzbek Wikipedia will lose a truly valuable contributor. You've made an incredible impact, and as someone who’s been part of the community for a long time, I deeply appreciate everything you’ve done.

Please don’t make a final decision just yet take some time to think it over.

I agree with Nataev.

Really hope you reconsider. — ITPRO.UZ (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Casual, please reconsider. We really appreciate your professionalism. I was very surprised by your decision. We need experienced administrators like you. All difficulties will pass and everything will fall into place. Please, Casual. Kagansky (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I accepted this situation with despair. Dear @Casual:, I think you will definitely abandon this decision. You are one of the most important administrators for the team. Please, maintain your administrative rights. Mirishkorlik (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Uzbek Wikipedia needs your services more. Please reconsider this decision, Casual. Respectfully Alpasli (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You want to leave because you are being incited by unfair people. If the Uzbek Wikipedia becomes filled with unfair and paid editors, I will leave too.--MirzoUlug'Bek 👤💬 17:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Casual: onhold time is about to end, just to be sure - do you stand by your request to revoke sysop permissions? AramilFeraxa (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. —Casual (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done per above with thanks for your service. AramilFeraxa (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Local rules require sysop privileges to be removed after six months of inactivity. Since the user in question has not edited since September 2024 (which will be half a year in 18 hours), please consider revoking his sysop status.--Spring Roll Conan ( Teahouse · Contributions ) 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I no longer wish to continue my role as sysop in Korean Wikipedia. Aspere (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. EPIC (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Steward requests
• Log of changes to user rights
• Log of global rights-related changes
• Steward handbook
• Users that have signed confidentiality agreement for nonpublic personal data
• Archives
  • 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024
  • 2025: 01, 02, 03

• Steward requests
• Meta-Wiki requests