Steward requests/Permissions

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Steward requests
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 30 June 2019 (→‎Removal of access: +). It may differ significantly from the current version.
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.

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 you're requesting access for multiple bots, leave this field blank and give a list of these bots 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.

Kaleem Bhatti@sd.wiktionary

Status:    In progress

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

What permission do you want? Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: I want administration at sd.Wiktionary because at sd.wiktionary is only 1 administration Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to start a local discussion first. Ruslik (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: I have added local discussion link Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, transclude that subpage to the main discussion page. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: done Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any transclusion. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now check transclusion. Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
???? Ruslik (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleem Bhatti: It's still not transcluded on a request for administrator rights page. Please do so. Trijnsteltalk 21:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Trijnstel: Please now check I have added administrators link and sorry because first I was not understand Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either you transclude it properly or I will close this request as not done. Ruslik (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: Could you please help me how can I transclude it. Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: Kaleem Bhatti (talk)

  • @Kaleem Bhatti: sorry for the slow response here. I've transcluded your request here -- please translate the header. It looks like most of the community has already commented, but I will leave the request open for another couple of days just in case. Apologies again for the delay. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajraddatz: I have translated header Kaleem Bhatti (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User Paputx@ca.wikibooks

Status:    Done

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

You should start a new vote. Ruslik (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paputx, Xavi Dengra, how is it going? --Base (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0 and Base: No, we shouldn't start a new voting. This decision was taken by unanimity in Dec 2018 and not for just a period of 3 or 6 months. Every wiki should have a sovereignty, and not restrict admin access' criteria to what Meta stewards feel free for a subjective deadline. This has happenned in Catalan projects beforehand: denials of admin and bureacrat rights, continuous changes driven by Meta and promoted by the WMF with very narrow consensus and few participation of previous notice. Meta is just getting a burden for small and difficult to run small projects, of which those new and dedicated members just want to improve the content without pending all the time of such superstructures that are not investing any efforts in improve the interface or quality of projects that are not anglocentric or Wikipedia. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 18:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Paputx was granted adminship for the first time and the community at that time was small, I agree with Ajraddatz on the granting of temporary adminship and I would have, personally, done the same, as stated in our handbook. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xavi Dengra, I know what it feels like. That being said as stewards we need to ensure that wikis have permissions delegated to people that are supported by the communities. At the current size of cawikibooks, with less than 20 people ever having made 500 edits it is not a wiki with a big community. I do not feel confident enough about giving them permanent rights after only 3 months they held them. Given support Paputx will get adminship for longer term this time, but that is it. The best way you can help this is to have cawikibooks grow. Have you considered doing some outreach (perhaps with Amical Wikimedia help) to get more people involved in the project? --Base (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paputx is a trusted user, and the community at that time decided to make him administrator. I understand that stewards have a big responsability in this sense, but global policies shouldn't override local community consensus in this matter (and his candidature didn't specify a time limit, so it was understood as having a permanent duration). He hasn't caused any conflicts during his time as administrator, so I don't see why he can't be renewed without a new vote. As for your suggestion, promoting our sister projects is part of our strategic plan for the next years, so yes, that's something we are planning to do (In fact, Paputx already organised an edit-a-thon for Wikibooks a month ago or so, which led to the writing of a whole new book; I'll be doing a follow-up event during July). --Unapersona (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Unapersona said, and given the fact that is a really small community, reaching an agreement for a new administrator means that the editors expect a stable task -and not just one for three months. We might not expect indefinite rights, but neither votings every three months to ratify positions, because this erosions the resilience and stability of a small group like ours. When I referred to the superstructures, intrusion in well-organised decisions, and lack of sovereignty I meant exactly that behind every project, Amical Wikimedia stays awake that there is no a major problem in any sister project. And that thanks to our proximity to the small communities, most of the main editors in every Catalan Wikimedia project is also a member of the organisation. Since Paputx is admin and one year even before, he has carried out different workshops, meetings to release free-licensed materials, and promoted new activities on Wikibooks. Also as an admin for 10 years in ca.wikibooks, I wouldn't ask his renewal if I was not absolutely sure of this reliability. That's why, from all my respect to your volunteer task, I disagree on the stewards' assumptions: because every community has an own context and the decision should be directly taken from the sovereign result of each voting. Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 18:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for another seven months. I commented on the last request that I was fine with extending access, when no reply was given I did not implement the extension. I've reviewed the sysop actions of the user in question and find no errors, and noting the continued community support I am happy to extend this. We give temporary access as a form of risk management, and here there is very little risk as demonstrated by the past three months and the previous discussion. After the (combined) one year period, please start a new discussion and we can extend for further time or assign indefinite adminship depending on the case. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Munkhzaya.E@mn.wikipedia

Status:    On hold

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

Munkhzaya.E, could you please start a new discussion and have it last for at least a week? --Base (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Base, that was the new discussion, I just did not delete the earlier answers, now everything fits. Best regards Munkhzaya.E (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ooswesthoesbes@li.wikinews

Status:    On hold

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

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

Surprizi@ab.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Hi, in abwiki I working only one and could you please give me admin access more then 1 year? Cheers!--Surprizi (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done for 1.5 years. Note that you don't need to ask anyone to support you; if no local users are around to comment, then an announcement in a public place is sufficient. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interface administrator access

See Interface admin for information about this user group.

  • If you are requesting adminship and the interface admin at the same time, you can file one request in administrator section and state you want interface adminship as well.
  • MediaWiki interface translations are done at translatewiki.net. Please do not request interface administrator access solely for that purpose; your request will be declined.
  • Since the end of 2018, all interface administrators are required to have two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled. Please, enable it before posting your request here.
  • 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 interface adminship.

  • Discussions should be open for seven days. Please request interface 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 interface adminship for specific tasks, please state for how long and for which tasks you need it. Otherwise stewards will decide whether to assign permanent interface adminship and the duration of interface adminship. See Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements.

Itsmine@zh-classical.wikipedia

Status:    On hold

pre community discussion WAN233 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsmine: Please, enable 2FA. Ruslik (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kareyac@hyw.wikipedia

Status:    Done

Hi. I'm applying for temporary interface adminship in hyw.wikipedia. My goal is include new and fix existing features and tools - Kareyac (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kareyac: How much time in estimate you think you'll need the permission, given that you ask it temporarily? Please also take a look at H:2FA, because interface administrator access requires mandatory two-factor authentication. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcoAurelio: I suppose half of year would be good term at first. I also took a look at H:2FA. - Kareyac (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kareyac: Alright. I'll grant the permission for 6 months then. Thanks for responding. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Granted for 6 months to expire on 2019-12-29. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2019 (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.

MIKHEIL@ka.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

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

@გიო ოქრო: Should the bureaucrat right be removed as well? Ruslik (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: No, because that rule don't includes bureaucrat right. გიო ოქრო (talk) 09:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@გიო ოქრო: Bureaucrats override admins for they can grant people admins. Chances are that once a steward removes the admin access of MIKHEIL, it could be soon granted by MIKHEIL themselves. --Super Wang hates PC You hate, too? 09:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Wang: Yes, there are. But I think MIKHEIL will not do it. I just apply you about the administrator right. Do it as you decide. გიო ოქრო (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion that should (more likely) have happened locally
Administrator rights from Mikheil can be taken away only after filing an request in the Georgian Wikipedia and after discussion there can be administrative actions. So, while at the local level the issue is not resolved there is nothing to discuss. I'm waiting for request at the local level, and without the decision of the local community, the administrative actions of the steward are not welcomed. --Mehman 97 13:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
„If an administrator within 3 months doesn't make 500 edits and 50 sysop actions, sysop rights will be removed without voting (automatically)“ — There is no need for discussion. Georgian Bureaucrats can't remove sysop rights. გიო ოქრო (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ვიკიპედია:ადმინისტრატორები/ადმინისტრატორის_სტატუსის_მოხსნა — It is not written that I don't have the right to request on Meta and I have to request in the local wiki first. გიო ოქრო (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In 2014 MIKHEIL himself applied to Meta-Wiki and demanded to resign 4 administrators (Zangala, BRUTE, Giorgi13, Island). He did not make any request in Georgian Wikipedia and directly wrote a resignation request. He indicated only the discussion of introduction of the rule. There was no local discussion. Now, when there is rule, there is no need for local discussion. Best regards გიო ოქრო (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2014 case there was a discussion and elections where they took the appropriate decision (please do not mislead people). When the question is about 17 editing and because of this, asking for removing status, perhaps a discussion is required here. Without a local discussion, the status cannot be removing and everyone should respect the decision of the local community, no one has the right to bypass the opinion of the community. This is not a place for discussion, so submit request at the local level and continue the discussion there. Kindly, --Mehman 97 15:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat the same: „If an administrator within 3 months does not make 500 edits and 50 sysop actions, sysop rights will be removed without voting (automatic)- There is no need for discussion and community can not stop resignation if sysop has not made the required 500 edits. Show me rule that says, that I can't apply to Meta-Wiki. გიო ოქრო (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For context stewards might want to review Requests for comment/Vote of confidence on sysops and unblock for user Deu on kawiki. And good luck to whomever makes a call on this. --Rschen7754 15:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion reported by Mehman, the new rule is discussed and does not include resignation of concrete administrators. In Georgian Wikipedia there is page (ვიკიპედია:ადმინისტრატორები/სტატუსის მოხსნა), where you can demand the resignation of sysop, but the community can't stop that process, if sysop has not made the required edits. So, the application in Georgian Wiki makes no sense, because the community does not solve the result (the result of discussion of community is that RULE) and the bureaucrats can not remove the status. For these reasons I apply here and not in Georgian Wiki. There is no rule that prohibits this. Please act according to the rules and remove sysop rights from MIKHEIL. Best regards, გიო ოქრო (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's super that Rschen7754 noted Requests for comment/Vote of confidence on sysops and unblock for user Deu on kawiki. Keep in mind that this request is made by a person who has a personal dislike for MIKHEIL. I’m not going to continue the discussion here, which should be conducted at the local level, but at the end I’ll add that there are not enough 17 editing and this number is not a reason for removing the status, so this issue should be decided by the consensus at the local level (administrator who has more than 400 editing is clearly not a passive admin). Kindly, --Mehman 97 22:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have personal dislike for MIKHEIL and for other users. The rule is the rule (MIKHEIL supported himself during the voting). The rule don't includes "more than 400 edits". He (MIKHEIL) did not made required edits, and therefor sysop rights must be remove. There is a consensus at the local level — indentured rule supported by the majority of active users. According that rule discussions and consensus are not required and the rights should be automatically removed. Regards, გიო ოქრო (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

But it was your own request. Ruslik (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... I am not discussing the merit of this request, but only stating that it is natural to have wikis in which a user can be a bureaucrat but not sysop. Érico (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that it is pointless to remove sysop access from a local bureaucrat who can make himself a sysop again the next day. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he can, but without election he has no right to make himself a sysop, and therefor I think Mikheil will not do it. At last, sysop right must be remove (according to the local policy). Thanks, გიო ოქრო (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can Mikheil confirm this here? Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ask him:
@MIKHEIL: გთხოვ დაგვიდასტურო, რომ იმ შემთხვევაში თუ ჩამოგერთმევა ადმინისტრატორის სტატუსი, შენ, როგორც ბიუროკრატი ამ სტატუსს არ აღიდგენ კვლავ, კენჭისყრის გარეშე.
Please confirm, that if an administrator status will be removed, you, as a bureaucrat, will not make yourself an administrator again without voting. გიო ოქრო (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think MIKHEIL should not be an admin (per RFC I mentioned earlier) I think this is an exercise in futility. --Rschen7754 20:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: As we see, he isn't going to answer. გიო ოქრო (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grönneger_1@nds-nl.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

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

@Servien: Does nds-nl Wikipedia have any specific policy about administrator inactivity? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, we currently don't have a specific policy. If we notice that admins haven't been very active the past (couple of) year(s) we ask if the user wants to retain his/her admin status. If so, the admin at least has to contribute to the project in some way, if this is not the case then admin rights don't have any added value and should be removed. Servien (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I can remove the admin bit without a local policy or a vote. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just let AAR kicks in? — regards, Revi 10:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AAR message sent on June 19. Permissions can be removed on July 19 if the user do not reply or, if replying, the community does not support continued access. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steinbach@nds-nl.wikipedia

Status:    In progress

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

Not sure if this should be AAR handled? — regards, Revi 10:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, noted by Ruslik above. — regards, Revi 10:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A note that this user was not notified in the 2018 AAR round. --Rschen7754 18:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User DoRD@enwiki

Status:    Done

Please remove my CheckUser and Oversight access. Thanks. —DoRD talk 00:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. — regards, Revi 09:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — regards, Revi 08:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

28bytes@enwiki

Status:    Done

Please remove my bureaucrat and global renamer flags. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. — regards, Revi 09:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — regards, Revi 08:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MikeLynch@sawikipedia

Status:    Done

Requesting removal of own bureaucrat and sysop flags on sawiki. Thanks. Lynch7 11:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. — regards, Revi 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done with thanks for your service. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox@en.wp

Status:    Done

Please remove my checkuser and oversight permisssions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions. — regards, Revi 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman@en.wp

Status:    In progress

I am requesting removal of the bureaucrat flag from enwiki. Wizardman (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2019 (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=19179107"