Jump to content

Meta:Requests for adminship

Edit links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Shortcut:
WM:RFA
This page hosts requests for administrator access on the Meta-Wiki; for requesting administrator access on any other wiki, please find the appropriate venue on the index of request and proposal pages. Requests for bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight and bot, as well as removal of them (other than inactivity) are also made here. Before making a request here, please see the administrator policy.

Most requests should be listed here for at least seven days; bureaucrats should only close after the minimum time foreseen in the relevant policy. Discussions are not closed early. Adminship will be granted by a support ratio of at least 75%. If a request hasn't been addressed by a bureaucrat after a lengthy period of time, please leave a note at Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. Requests may be extended, or put on hold by bureaucrats, pending decision or finding of consensus.

Requests for temporary adminship and bot requests may be less formal and often go for a shorter duration if consensus becomes clear after only a few days of discussion.

All editors with an account on Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link between the two, may participate in any request and give their opinion of the candidate. However, more active Meta editors' opinions may be given additional weight in controversial cases.

See below for information on prerequisites on submitting a request, and how to add a nomination.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
This box: view · talk · edit

Information

Note that this page is for access on Meta only. See the permission request to stewards page for adminship/deadminship requests on other projects.

Regular adminship

  1. Before requesting admin access, please check the policy for requesting adminship.
  2. Use the box below, insert your username:

  3. Place a request on this page, by transcluding the subpage, for example {{Meta:Requests for adminship/Username}}. Please put the newest request on the bottom. Bear in mind that even if you do meet the criteria above this does not mean that the community will automatically approve a request.
  4. Please note, past administrators who have given up their rights must meet all criteria at the time of the new request. There is no separate process for reinstating past administrators.

Please note: Ill-considered nominations for adminship can be draining and deflating to both the community and the candidate. Any successful candidate will need to be able to demonstrate sufficient experience within the Wikimedia community, in addition to a familiarity with Meta-Wiki. If a candidate is not already a local administrator or holder of advanced permissions on a Wikimedia content project, they are less likely to pass a request for adminship here at Meta-Wiki.

Bureaucratship

Add your request below under the bureaucratship section. Please note:

  • Only active administrators can become bureaucrats, and only after at least 6 months of regular adminship.
  • User is endorsed by two current bureaucrats after they nominate themselves here.

If you fail any of these requirements, you will not be assigned the bureaucrat flag. For more information see the Meta bureaucrat page.

Other access

For these types of access, create a subpage just as you would for regular adminship and add it to the appropriate section of this page.


  • Limited adminship: If you need sysop access for a particular reason (such as ability to edit protected pages), you may request limited adminship on Meta. If granted, the user understands that they will only be allowed to use the tools for the tasks they were approved, and not doing so will be grounds for immediate removal. Temporary sysop access will normally be valid for one month unless requested and granted otherwise.


  • CheckUser: please read the CheckUser policy and add your request below under the checkuser section, in the same way as an admin request.

  • Oversight: please read the Oversight policy and add your request below under the oversight section, in the same way as an admin request.


  • CentralNotice administrator: The Central Notice administrator group grants access to manage and edit banner campaigns. Because of the potentially huge impact of banners on the wikis, this should be granted carefully and sparingly. The WMF requires two-factor authentication for this access.

For these types of access, just ask on Meta request for help from a sysop or bureaucrat page:

Requests for global renamer permissions are handled at global permission requests to stewards page.

Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors

If you are a Wikimedia Foundation staff member or contractor and need rights on Meta-Wiki to perform your duties, the request process is different. Please review the WMF staff userrights policy on Foundation-wiki and follow the procedure described there. If in doubt, please contact Trust and Safety by sending an email to ca@wikimedia.org.

Requests for regular adminship

None currently

Requests for limited adminship

None currently

Requests for interface adminship

None currently

Requests for bureaucratship

Barras

Barras (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)

Hi all! I posted yesterday a hint to the crats, that the admin activity review hasn't happened and realised after the comment from Codename Noreste that meta has only four crats left. Thinking about it, I'd like to apply again for the bureaucrat rights here. I used to be a meta crat between July 2010 and October 2017, when I was rightfully removed due to inactivity.

I'd like to help again closing RfXs, and I'd also help with the biannual activity review here and whatever else needs attention from crats.

Bureaucrat endorsements

Our current policy requires that at least two bureaucrats endorse this request, thus pinging @M7, MF-Warburg, Sotiale, and Xaosflux: for them being notified.

Thanks for consideration! -Barras talk 17:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

  1. Conditional endorsement that will apply 7 days after this was started. (Still think that entire policy needs reworking). — xaosflux Talk 17:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  2. Same as above. --M/ (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)reply

EggRoll97

Not ending before 02:01, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

I have always been of the belief that if I'm going to say that a group is not active enough, I should be ready to volunteer to spend time on that group's tasks myself. Which leads me here, to presenting myself to the community, because the reality is that we need more bureaucrats, and the inactivity review isn't the first time. For example, let's look at the time period where myself and Max requested interface adminship, back about a year ago. The response time was a week later when a bureaucrat arrived to action the requests. For a more recent example, we can look to a request on RfH for account creator a few months ago, a group that only bureaucrats can add, which required crat pings twice before a response, and the request was resolved in a week, when many requests are actioned in less than a day, and really, closer to hours. Obviously, the issue is not because of individual bureaucrats, I believe they're doing their best, but weeks-long response times to get a bureaucrat's attention is not ideal, so the solution is to have more bureaucrats. --EggRoll97 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Bureaucrat endorsements
!Votes
  • Support Support EggRoll is active, has a valid need and use case for the perms, and the simple matter of fact is that we do need more bureaucrats given the activity levels of the current 'crat team. //shb (t • c) 02:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose Oppose the examples above seem to be placing urgency on things that aren't really that urgent, in general I expect bureaucrats to be boring and deliberate in acting - a feature, not a bug. — xaosflux Talk 02:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Xaosflux: "the examples above seem to be placing urgency on things that aren't really that urgent" – I'm sorry, but respectfully, a one week response time on a wiki with >80 sysops is abysmally horrible. I'll also add that being boring and deliberate in acting is not the same as waiting a whole week for basic requests to be processed; you can be boring and deliberate and still have reasonable processing times. In what world are poor wait times supposed to be a "feature"? //shb (t • c) 02:26, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    While I'd consider a RFH request for something like help, this user is being actively disruptive to be urgent (which is why it can be handled by the admin corps); this user wants to request something unusual (like the using a permission group as a hack for a nonstandard workflow in the example) isn't something I'd call urgent -- so trying to highlight why it's not done "closer to hours" isn't a fair comparison. And "weeks-long response times" seems exaggerated with some edge cases cherry picked, there is rarely a lengthy backlog. — xaosflux Talk 09:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    @Xaosflux: Since you gave Barras a conditional endorsement, while opposing EggRoll, Barras' stated reason is that Meta has only four bureaucrats and that there is work such as RfXs and the activity review that needs attention, while EggRoll likewise argues that more 'crats are needed because of delays in crat work. Since you endorse Barras, but oppose EggRoll, what specifically makes Barras' stated need sufficient, but EggRoll's insufficient? Is Barras' previous 'crat experience itself a factor, or would you apply the same standard to a first-time 'crat candidate with the same claimed need? //shb (t • c) 21:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    (to Barras: I don't mean to throw you under the bus or anything and I hope it doesn't come out that way; I'm just looking to know why the double standard from xaos) //shb (t • c) 21:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Regarding Barras my conditional support was primarily procedural, as our current RfB process doesn't require actual consensus showing unless there are immediate objections, but does require the blessing of existing crats. — xaosflux Talk 00:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
    Specifically, I think that EggRoll97 may act too impulsively; this oppose isn't a generic there are too many crats reason. — xaosflux Talk 00:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I have to agree with SHB, about what xaosflux said above doesn't seem to be a significant concern here. I still believe we should elect a few more bureaucrats just to be on the safe side (not too much). I even suggested to EPIC off-wiki about for them to request bureaucrat permissions to prevent similar situations mentioned here (as with Barras). I am willing to add my support accordingly. Codename Noreste /// ⭐️✨ 03:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Support:
    • I haven't seen major issues with the activity of the bureaucrats and haven't really felt like we needed many new bureaucrats (otherwise I would have applied myself). It might be a good idea to create a U4C-style common ping to ping everyone, instead of a single bureaucrat.
    • I'll criticise Xaosflux's comment in that "expect bureaucrats to be boring and deliberate in acting" is a meaningless statement - are bureaucrats supposed to think for a week or what? And why did they oppose this request but not Barras'?
    • The OP is clearly qualified, so I'm fine there. The OP had a similar request refused on the basis that there were too many oversighters (which is why I found this request a little surprising), but I don't really find that a valid argument within reason. Leaderboard (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Oppose Oppose Too little activity on Meta for my taste here (you have fewer than a quarter as many edits on Meta as any other crat, and even that total is inflated by U4C work), and not impressed by this coming only a month after the previous failed oversight request. And yeah, I agree with Xaosflux that one year-old example and one involving a very nonstandard process aren't very convincing of a need for more crats. * Pppery * it has begun 19:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)reply

Requests for CheckUser access

"Meta:Requests for checkuser" redirects here. To request checkuser information, see Meta:Requests for CheckUser information.
None currently

Requests for Oversight access

"Meta:Requests for oversight" redirects here. To request oversighting, see Meta:Oversighters#Requests.
None currently

Requests for translation adminship

None currently

Requests for CentralNotice adminship

None currently

Requests for bot flags

None currently

See also

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

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=31127406#Requests_for_translation_adminship"