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-stewardsconnectIRC 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.
1. Place the following code at the bottom of the appropriate section below:
==== User name@xxproject ====
|status = <!--don't change this line-->
|domain = <!-- such as en.wikibook -->
|user name =
(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]]").
3. If anything is missing from your request, a steward will request more information.
Confirmation of signing confidentiality agreement
I consider that a decision should be made for above listed discussion. The discussion started on January 15, 2016. Thanks, --Silenzio76 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There are some very problematic behavioural aspects with this candidate. I have noticed them there and I also mention them here. The problematic aspects are about a previous verbal agressivity amounting to personal attacks of other users and a strong tendency to label editors with whom he disagrees. Also, some tendency to own articles has been mentioned there. He also speaks about a supposed false topic, sensitive to Wikimedia Foundation. These traits are not to be seen on a future sysop.--220.127.116.11 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I advise the steward to ignore the message above for many reasons: the user has no right to vote, any comments related to this topic should be placed at w:ro:Wikipedia:Candidați/Administrator/Dan Mihai Pitea (2), and there are strong reasons to believe that behind this IP address is an user whom already expressed his vote. Best regards, --Silenzio76 (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
My opinion is to close as successful. 15 pro, 3 against. That makes more than 80% support, more than the widely required 75% of support required for promotions. —MarcoAurelio 14:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The rules @ro.wp are quite different: "Un birocrat evaluează discuția și decide dacă s-a ajuns la consens. Consens nu înseamnă nici unanimitate, nici majoritate; sunt ignorate opiniile care nu se bazează pe argumente rezonabile. Birocratul trebuie să poată justifica decizia pe care a luat-o și, dacă a ignorat una sau mai multe opinii, să explice de ce." I'm not gonna translate it myself, Google does a pretty good job.
Basically, the task of the person closing the discussion is to see if the negative points raised during the discussion are substantial enough to prevent the promotion. CLosing based on votes alone will most likely raise a chorus of protests.--Strainu (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This policy of ro:wp attempted to refute mockery voting. But bureaucrats, citing the idea that they are best judge, behaved like dictators. It proved once again that dictatorship is worse than democracy. This is why we do not have bureaucrats at ro:wp, and I no longer support this policy. --Turbojet (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Strainu:, but there are no bureaucrats at ro.wp. When the community decided to go without bureaucrats, it also decided to go with the stewards' judgement and with their methods of evaluating consensus. I also think the 75% rule of thumb works well with identifying consensus on ro.wp. If the opposing minority had brought serious arguments against the proposal, then they would probably have convinced enough people to change their votes to oppose. If you look at the ro.wp sysop candidacy history, you'll see how it actually fits. The closest proposal that we had to deny in the last three years had 70% support, and even seemingly close proposals that have been accepted went over 75%.Andrei Stroe (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Now there are 16 votes pro and 2 against. --Sîmbotin (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
But you can't expect stewards to really fullfil that when none of us speak Romanian... Our understanding of those discussions will be limited by automatic translations, which are not 100% reliable. While we will try to comply with it, I feel you're putting excessive burden on us asking us to behave like if we were local community members that understand the language, knows the community problems, etc. and thus can make informed decisions. Inevitably, we will have to rely on votes IMHO. What do other stewards think? —MarcoAurelio 18:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: If you think it would really help, I can translate the whole discussion. --Wintereu 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't expect you to behave like you're local community members, quite the contrary actually. By not being involved, I would expect it to be easier for you to pick the few important arguments and ignore the noise.
Anyway, if you decide internally that this is too much of a burden, please announce it officialy at the village pump, so we can at least modify the rules for future candidates. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay. Thanks all for the explanations. We will be looking now to close the discussion accordingly. A decision should arrive soon I hope. Does local policy allows to close the vote pending a decision? Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 11:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You were already explained that we're not voting on ro.wikipedia when it comes to adminship. Also, until the discussion is officially closed (with the conclusion), eligible users can still express their opinion. Regards, Wintereu 16:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no need to be bossy, and certainly I'd expect that you understand that I don't speak English, so if my meaning is unclear please ask before complaining. It has been clear to all of us that there's no voting in rowp, otherwise this issue would have been resolved long ago. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 17:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Done - Adminship granted. Having reviewed the arguments against the candidate, we find them not strong enough to prevent promotion. Among those arguments, there's an unproven accusation of sockpuppetry and a descend of the number of visits and lack of NPV. As for the first one, I can't find any proofs, not any direct request to compare the candidate with other accounts that are suspected to be operated by the same user. Also, CheckUser is not for fishing, and we can't simply go checking "just in case" the candidate has used multiple accounts, which are not forbidden unless they're used to damage, sabotage or deceive the project or its community. When and if you have such evidence, then we can talk. As for the second one, certainly being an administrator is not the reason for the decrease of the number of reasons of a project. Respect to the NPV policies is a local matter, that has to be enforced locally. We can't also ignore that the candidate has more than 80% of support at this moment, and that if the arguments against were so strong to prevent promotion they could have convinced others to vote the same way or remove their support vote. Discussion closed, promotion enacted. —MarcoAurelio 15:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This request is for providing temporary adminship to User:Billinghurst @bn.wikisource as per above discussion and community consensus. The community will request for termination for adminship after the requested work is completed by him. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
On hold until 11 February 2016. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Temporary CheckUser access is not permitted and temporary access is only used by stewards.
Stewards: Before granting this permission to a user, please check the current policy and make sure that the user has signed the confidentiality agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation. An email template is available for requesting new users to identify. Breaching these rules may be the cause for removing your steward 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, a trusted user from that wiki should provide a link here to the discussion, 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.
See the instructions above for adding new requests. Please post new requests at the bottom of the section.
Hi. This user is inactive last 1 year and in his latest edit January 7th, 2015 he noted that he leaves Wikipedia. Thanks.--Wertuose (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but if the user has not clearly said he's resigning and there's no local policy or community decission allowing us to do this, the retirement of an editor is not a cause to remove someone's rights. Nonetheless, if the editor does not return, AAR will be triggered and rights will be removed. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 16:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Please remove my patroller, template editor and autopatrolled rights on ro.wikipedia. Thanks. --XXN (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
On hold for 1 day, standard for resignation of advanced permissions To handling steward: these are local rights, you'll need to add yourself to the local steward group and perform the action at rowp's userrights. —MarcoAurelio 00:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Wtf? There were plenty of local admins to do so, nor were any advanced rights resigned. --Vogone (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Good point. Local admins should have done this action. I was aware of the recent resignation of all bureaucrats from this wiki and made a wrong assumption based on the userright tool and advice above. I should have double checked. My mistake. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
We can assume that the user preferred a more "silently" removal of the respective rights, instead of asking a local admin to do so. Otherwise, it's sad to see such an experimented user like XXN doing this. --Wintereu 22:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
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: