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.wikibooks -->
|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
To at least give the community the opportunity to voice a possible concern. For that purpose, I'd also suggest removing the page protection which goes against the spirit of these projects. Savhñ 12:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
But does not exist user who has done more than one contributions within 30 days except me and a another user.--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Even with 3 locally active users, it is a requirement. Without the possibility for local input, the request will not be granted. Savhñ 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have the possibility for local input i.e. for the Greek Wikiversity. --Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That is why you need to open a local request. If you don't & if you don't unprotect the page where these comments should take place, your rights will not be extended. Savhñ 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
This page is not protected anymore and the vote is local. What else I should do?--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Or give to me temporarily rights.--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You have been asked to open a new request in el.wikiversity. You still have not done it. --Stryn (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ι did it. Tomorrow will expire my rights.--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On hold until the 26th to allow the request to be open for a week. If community consensus exists we will re-grant you adminship. Savhñ 10:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the requirement criteria so that a community will be considered as a big community ? Is our community eligible to elect a permanent administrator ? Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
That will depend on the size of the regular editing community. I'm putting this request on hold, to allow for a week of local discussion (to be considered on 26 January 2017) – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2017 (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.
Discussion: <see my talk page on wikidata:Edoderoobot> - it's said that I am unrealiable, so I better do not get any extra bits or rights
@Edoderoo: Please reconsider this decision. The accusations were made by a single user and may not reflect the opinion of the Wikidata community. --Pasleim (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
comment: Wait, please. Try and work it out with Vogone before you give up your power. MechQuester (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My bot-bit was removed with the remark: You're unreliable. The discussion the rest of the day did not sound very promising to me, but it is really unthankfull for the many many hours I spent on Wikidata last year. I don't feel like I'm ever going to get over this may-2015 discussion with stewards like this on this project. I understand that a bot will be blocked when edits are not understood, but this steward went a few steps ahead. I don't feel like we are going to talk this out like this. Edoderoo (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note stewards are unrelated to the actions you're referring to. Putting this on hold, allowing the user to reconsider his decision. Savhñ 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: Wil je alsnog dat je sysoprechten op wikidata weggehaald worden? Savhñ 12:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Gezien het andere issue is uitgemond is een venijnige partij verwijten maken, lijkt mij dat inderdaad het beste. Ik voel er niets voor om hier extra rechten te hebben, wanneer anderen "flexibel gebruik" van die rechten menen te moeten maken. Mijn humeur is hierdoor zwaar verpest geraakt. Edoderoo (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following request is closed: We will implement consensus, whenever it is reached and duly reported, since removal of the rights does not seem to be an emergency. This is really a discussion that should take place on commons. Savhñ 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Based on consensus within the bureaucrat group, the addition of the rights has been undone, returning to the status quo ante. Savhñ 00:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Please remove the sysop flag of INeverCry. It was reinstated out of process. During the latest resignation of his sysop bit, INeverCry assured that this resignation would be final and irrevocable. Thus, to regain sysop bit, the usual application procedure is necessary at the very least. The current discussion on Commons shows that there is absolutely no consensus to reinstate INC's sysop bit, and that a regular re-application at this timepoint is likely to fail as well. I don't want to blame the bureaucrat AFBorchert at the moment, anyone of us may make mistakes from time to time, but this doesn't change anything on the fact that the recent reinstatement of INC's sysop bit was out of process and has to be undone. Thanks. --A.Savin (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please keep on hold until the deciding crat, AFBorchert, can make statement. Thank you. --Krd 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that A.Savin is not a bureaucrat and that he is in no position to do this request. Krd is a bureaucrat. Jcb (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Then can the stewards please treat this request as if was written by me—a community-elected Commons bureaucrat. Thank you, odder (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I am very sorry that I didn't know that such requests are limited to bureaucrats. In a regular case, this may be logical, but here we have a case of an out-of-process action which should be undone asap, so actually just someone has to inform the stewards about it, as only stewards can remove sysop flag, but sadly not the bureaucrat who granted it. Thanks odder. --A.Savin (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a community dispute, please don't use us as a part in it. Please return here once there is consensus locally as to how this should be handled. I've placed this request on hold. Regards, – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
An out-of-process action against community consensus cannot be undone? --A.Savin (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
An action made by a bureaucrat, contested by another bureaucrat, considering there's not harm there's not need to remove now. Please do not insist, Commons is large enough to reach a consensus without us acting like sort of an arbcom. --Vituzzu (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
As Vituzzu says, the Commons community is perfectly capable of handling this. All I intend to do as a sysop is simple deletions anyways, so there's no emergency of any kind. I don't have any intention of participating in any situation that concerns blocking or unblocking of a long-term user. lNeverCry 19:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm marking this request as not done - according to the Stewards policy, it is our responsibility to implement consensus, and that does not exist here. It is not our responsibility to make rulings on local policy issues, so please start a new request when local consensus has gone either way and the discussion is appropriately closed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The current consensus is, that the latest resignation was irrevocable, and so it was out of process and against the rules to grant sysop flag without prior discussion. You still fail to understand it? Sorry for the rather extreme example, but imagine a crat on Wikipedia runs amok and grants sysop flags to a couple of recently registered vandal-only accounts. Would you then also say it's not your responsibility to take action and fix this violation of rules? --A.Savin (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually understand the situation quite well, and I would ask that you keep your comments civil here. This is not a case of a rogue bureaucrat granting sysop rights to vandalism-only accounts; here, a bureaucrat has implemented a result that they believe matches policy, and is supported in that action by a substantial portion of the users involved in the discussion. Another substantial portion of the users involved, including yourself, argue that the re-sysop was out of process because a) the desysop was made under controversial circumstances, b) the 24 hour waiting period was not followed, and c) because he promised to not re-request the rights. Because there is discussion ongoing as to which of these perspectives is correct, it would be entirely inappropriate for stewards to intervene by picking one side or the other. So, please accept that I will implement a desysop if one is requested through a consensus of the Commons community, but until that time it would be highly inappropriate for stewards to be wheel-warring with elected Commons bureaucrats. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
What kind of community consensus do you require? A formal de-adminship request or would a statement from the unlucky crat who gets to close the BN-discussion be sufficient? Or perhaps a statement from AFBorchert in which he admits that he is wrong? I would like to avoid the first option. Natuur12 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Any of those options would be sufficient. The easiest would probably be to have a neutral 'crat close the current BN discussion after it has ended, and if there is consensus that the reinstatement was out-of-process then we could remove the bit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
(editconflicted) Honestly what I see at commons' BN is so close to a vote of confidence, simply lacking of the, now necessary, formalism. I'd also point out of 10 bureaucrat 2 are in favor, one is "generally supportive", one is for removal, another one is for removal for legitimacy reasons. Anyway, with big projects is not our business to state whatever a resignation was in good standing or not. Open a formal vote of confidence, make a pool among bureaucrats, find any other solution, but, since there's no harm at all, don't ask us to take any side in this kind of dispute. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Things on Commons clearly go out of hand for quite some time already, and I do expect that the project will be put under external governance at some point, but until this happened, let us indeed formally follow the procedures. If the BN discussion is properly reclosed, and the close is not contested by other crats, I am sure stewards will remove the flag.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment@Ajraddatz: Your suggestion above that all that's required here is a close of the BN discussion in favor of taking back my bit is completely inappropriate. I was elected as an admin by the Commons community. I self-requested the removal of my flag. Desysop policy on Commons requires routine or serious abuse of tools. In this case I removed a 3-month old block, and I've acknowledged the error and promised not to repeat it. My tools should only be removed through a successful desysop request. Stewards and crats shouldn't overrule the community and give them no say. I didn't do anything egregious here that would require steward interference. My enemies on Commons like Savin shouldn't be able to pull strings here at Meta. Besides, who said crat or any other voted approval or disapproval is required for giving the bit back to someone who self requested bit removal? lNeverCry 22:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not planning on interfering at all; if a community discussion results in a consensus for some action, the steward will implement it. If you feel that I do not have a fair rationale for doing so, then I'd be happy to step back and let one of the other stewards close this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@INeverCry: Please, for the sake of the Commons and wider Wikimedia community, do the honourable thing, resign your administrator permission on Commons and uphold the promise you made to the community in December 2016. It really hurts to watch you treat the community with this level of disdain. Nick (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I hereby strongly protest against your claim "My enemies on Commons like [A.]Savin". Anyone who's interested in the issue may want to read my today's statement. It seems that everyone who dares to criticize INC is automatically his enemy. Needless to say it's a totally unbearable behaviour. --A.Savin (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This request is closed lacking consensus. Please use a more appropiate venue on commons itself. Savhñ 22:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
On behalf of the Commons bureaucrat team, I would like to request that the stewards kindly reverse today's reinstating of @INeverCry's admin rights on Commons. As the rights were granted back through the decision of a bureaucrat—rather than through a community vote, ie. an RfA—we believe that it is within our bureaucrat discretion to be able reverse this decision and spare the community needless disruption and hurt. We have therefore reached an almost unanimous decision (9 in favour and 1 oppose, out of all 10 Commons bureaucrats) to request that INeverCry's sysop privileges on Commons be removed. We believe that INeverCry ought to seek the Commons community's consensus to again serve as an administrator and would indeed ask him to re-apply through a regular RfA vote should he choose to do so. Thank you, odder (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere where your fellow crats 99of9, EugeneZelenko, Ellin Beltz, or AFBorchert vote to have my bit removed. lNeverCry 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I notice that @MichaelMaggs: is active right now, and that @Ellin Beltz: was active a few minutes ago, I hope that they can respond here. @INeverCry: I remain enormously disappointed (and thus saddened) at your attitude here. Nick (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi INC. The discussion was by email on the Bureaucrat's email list. For transparency, my comment was: "I also agree with this course of action. As I said in my comment on the initial request, I am not familiar with the recent removal of rights, so I took him at his word that there was no cloud. It sounds like that is at least debatable. So the restoration, as well as being too quick, was based on votes themselves based on an unclear premise." Basically, I see this as correcting a procedural error where the outcome was not obviously going to be identical if a better procedure was followed. I will certainly consider supporting you in an RfA (after I have looked into the recent removal). --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an exceptional case, and after careful evaluation, I have proceeded to the removal of the admin right, undoing the action by the bureaucrat based on the consensus within the bureaucrat group that it should be undone, reported by odder and confirmed by 99of9. Savhñ 00:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. There was an ec, but I was just myself trying to confirm Odder's statement above that he placed this request with the (almost) unanimous approval of the entire crat team, a decision made on the bureaucrats' email list. While Commons (currently) has no written policy that applies to this exact situation, we believe that it is within our joint discretion to revoke the setting of an admin bit that was done by one of our number without what we consider to be the required community approval via an RFA. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I would like to resign my bureaucrat bit at Commons. Thanks, --AFBorchert (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Making one bad move does not make you a bad crat, and you better keep the bit and use it to learn. It is very unpleasant to be overruled by the community, but things happen.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
On hold for 24 hours per standard practice --Shanmugamp7(talk) 07:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
please re-consider this due to 1 bad call. If you truly doubt it, go for a re-confirmation instead. MechQuester (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouraging comments, Ymblanter and MechQuester. But this is not a big deal. I remain active as admin at Commons and at de:wp and also as OTRS member. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, with thanks for your service. – Ajraddatz (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2017 (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: