Commons:Rasmiyatchilar

This page explains the role of bureaucrats (sometimes called "crats") on Wikimedia Commons. Note that details of the role, and the way in which bureaucrats are appointed, may differ from other sites.

If you want to request bureaucrat help, please post at Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Bureaucrats are administrators with the technical ability on Wikimedia Commons to:

• Promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat (following consensus on requests for adminship),

These are collectively known as the bureaucrat tools.

Bureaucrats are experienced and trusted administrators who have agreed to take on additional tasks and have been entrusted with the bureaucrat tools by public consensus/vote.

Different bureaucrats have different areas of interest and expertise, but typical bureaucrat tasks include determining and closing:

• requests for certain user rights, including admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, translation admin & GW Toolset,

Bureaucrats are expected to be capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki.

Apart from roles which require use of the bureaucrat tools, bureaucrats have no special editorial authority by virtue of their position, and in discussions and public votes their contributions are treated in the same way as any ordinary editor. Any influence they may have is derived from their standing in the community. It is not that they gain special status by virtue of being a bureaucrat; rather, it is because bureaucrats are chosen from a pool of highly respected users, and highly respected users typically have some influence in the community anyway.

A bureaucrat closing a discussion or vote will do so on the basis of policy and if appropriate on the basis of consensus. Bureaucrats are trusted with a measure of discretion in all cases, and discussions/votes are never closed simply on the basis of a vote count. Bureaucrats may give more weight to well-argued opinions than unargued votes, and they may discount or partly discount votes and opinions of users who have made only a few contributions to Commons. Bureaucrats also have discretion to extend the period of a discussion or vote where they feel that would lead to a clearer consensus or otherwise improve the outcome.

It is allowed for a bureaucrat to close a discussion or vote on which they have previously expressed an opinion, but in such a case the closing bureaucrat should take care to close based on policy and overall consensus, and not on their own views. The bureaucrat's opinion/vote should be taken into account in the same way as that of the other voters, but with no special weight given to it. If the issue is particularly contentious, or the bureaucrat has become closely identified with one side of the argument, they may wish to ask another bureaucrat do the closing.

The Bureaucrat mailing list (bureaucrats-commons) is intended as a convenient way to notify some bureaucrats about urgent matters, and on rare occasions to discuss private matters. To contact the mailing list, please e-mail bureaucrats-commons@lists.wikimedia.org. If you wish to notify the list of an urgent matter, please include a link to any relevant on-wiki discussion. If you have a private request, please explain why it must remain private. If you prefer to contact an individual bureaucrat directly, you do not have to use the mailing list.

First, read Commons:Bureaucrats/Howto.

When you are ready, make your request using the box below, replacing Username with your own user name.

For greater visibility, all requests made here are transcluded onto the central Commons:Requests and votes page.

Please note any registered user may vote here although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted. It is preferable if you give reasons both for  Support votes or  Oppose ones as this will help the closing bureaucrat in their decision. Greater weight is given to argument, with supporting evidence if needed, than to a simple vote.

 Neutral comments are not counted in the vote totals for the purposes of calculating pass/fail percentages. However such comments are part of the discussion, may persuade others, and contribute to the closing bureaucrat's understanding of community consensus.

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Bureaucrats/Archive.

• Commons:User access levels