GTA Wiki

GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion

10,825pages on
this wiki

Welcome to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

You may apply for Rollback Rights or Administrator privileges on this noticeboard. To do so, you must meet the prerequisites, and then state what position you are looking for and why you think you need the rollback and/or administrator tools.


There is currently

position open.

Please apply below if you are interested.


Requests for Checkuser and Revision Delete must be done at Community Central (and they will probably be declined).

Patrollers are given the Rollback tool that allows users to quickly revert vandalism.

Administrators have the power to block and ban users, protect pages, move images, and delete pages and images, in addition to rollback.

To qualify for rollback rights, editors must have been active for two months with no rules violations. Rollbackers must receive a 60% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Users who apply within three months of joining will face a three month probationary period. This may also apply in extreme situations such as inexperience or users who were previously demoted. At the end of the three months a review will be made by Bureaucrats and Administrators to determine whether or not the user will retain their rights.

To qualify for administrator rights, editors must have been active patrollers for four months with no rule violations. Administrators must receive a 70% 'yes' percentage to be promoted. Those applying for adminship will likely be asked questions on how they deal with certain situations. This is to see if a user has the capabilities of being an administrator.

Editors with rollback and administrator experience on other wikis are encouraged to apply, and based on the editor in question exceptions may be made to the length of time editing required for promotion.

When applying for promotion, a community vote will take place. Voting lasts 7 days, although it may be allowed to run shorter (in the case of an obvious pass/fail) or longer (in the case of a very close vote) at bureaucrat discretion. Only bureaucrats should close votes.

Application users who are caught tampering with other users votes, such as changing a no to a yes, will have their request closed immediately.

Please submit your requests at the top of the "Active requests" page subsection.

Requests where the voting has finished can be found at

Active Requests

Smashbro8 - Bureaucrat

Hi everyone and fellow wiki friends. After seeing the resignation of one of our earliest bureaucrats, I decided to send this request to be a bureaucrat and help lead the wiki the correct way. Over the few months of me being an admin, I did become less active in actually editing pages, but I continue to show up here everyday to make sure the wiki is running smoothly. I feel as a bureaucrat, I could help the community much more than as an admin, and welcome thousands of new users to the GTA Wiki. Leave your votes and comments below. Thanks in addition for reading this. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 22:02, July 7, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8



  • I feel you are more than able to take role of Bureaucrat. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 22:18, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
  • No protests from me. Active daily, both in editing and in chat, hard working, plenty of experience and an admin on several wikis. Yes from me. Leo68 (talk) 22:19, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Inactive Requests

Messi1983 - Demotion

Closed as unsuccessful by Leo68 (talk) 13:53, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

It has been put forward that Messi1983 is to be demoted to patroller due to being too inactive to take part in his duties. This vote will be up for 7 days, in which time if Messi is to become active again this vote will be taken down. Please cast your vote below. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:03, June 18, 2015 (UTC)



  • He usually edits on a 10 day interval which is quite less for a Bureaucrat.Myth(Leave your threats here/Want to Stalk?) 12:11, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Dan still visits regularly and with the number of extremely active staff we now have, there isn't a lot for him to be seen actively doing. That doesn't mean he's not still willing to perform the duties, just that everyone else is beating him to the punch. I don't see the need nor the policy breach to warrant enforced demotion at this time. smurfy (coms) 12:22, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • As Leon (I think) suggested, I'd postpone this until 1 August, which would be two months from Dan's inactivity status date. Following my previous experience of demotion situations, I'm treading a lot more carefully this time around, as I don't want to feel like I've "hounded out" staff members. Sam Talk 12:33, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • For the past couple of months, Messi contributions almost exclusive boils down to edits in his user page or leaving messages to other users. He honestly doesn't strike me a someone who wants to keep contributing to this wikia all that much. (But that's just my interpretation of the situation, it doesn't mean I'm right) Regardless, I don't think that we should give him a free pass, just because the other members of the staff are already doing a good job in keeping this wikia on a good state. If he is not willing to contribute to this wikia all that much, theres a lot of other users who are, and keeping this users away from becoming patrollers or admins just because one single bureaucrat absence is not missed by the others sounds unfair to me. If he doesn't get demoted, at least move him to inactive or something. - DLVIII Talk 12:41, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand Sean's point of view, however, i'm not judging him but his life appears to be too busy to be here, so I agree that he should leave, as wiki could be too stressfull for him. EagleIcon AndreEagle17 PS3 Triangle PS3 Cross PS3 Circle 12:45, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion demoting him would be excessive now. Like Sam said, I would give him more time. He is a good bureaucrat with experience and I think he can still contribute positively to the wiki. DocVinewood (talk) 14:10, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want to sound harsh or anything, but I have edited here from since August 2013. From that point on to now, Messi hardly ever edited or used his rights. I honestly feel he doesn't take interest in the wiki as a bureaucrat should. Sure he's said he'd show up more often when Tom had given the wiki over to Vault Boy, which he did, but shortly went back to being inactive. I feel the wiki can run smoothly on two bureaucrats and I even wouldn't mind being a b'crat here. I feel giving Messi more time to edit isn't worth it; he's been inactive for over a year before Tom and Ilan resigned. It isn't worth the time. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 19:28, June 18, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • Well, for now, my vote is neutral because I don't know too much about Messi. It's hard to tell something for cases like this one, so uhh... neutral. Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Detonator Android Data Files Crate Android 22:19, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
  • Dan isn't active enough to be a Bureaucrat, maybe he could move to Patroller, but when I spoke to Tom around the time he was moved to inactive, the decision would be wait until August 1, so that Dan could make a decision. If we reopen the vote again in August I'd vote in favour if his activity didn't pick up. As stated, he doesn't edit pages, just his user page and talk pages. Leo68 (talk) 18:23, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not going to vote, because Dan (Messi) is a good friend of mine. I have no intention of voting to demote him, but I'm not neutral and my vote wouldn't be fair to the community. I did however remove VaultBoy's statement about this vote being open only to staff. Staff only votes should only happen in very, very specific instances, and anyway Wikia Staff wouldn't accept this discussion if it were staff only even if it does pass. Bureaucrats aren't just allowed but supposed to use their better judgment when it comes to things like possible troll or meatpuppet/sockpuppet votes, so that's not a reason to make a vote staff only. Also, remember that this is not a majority vote, since this is a bureaucrat vote it would need a 70% "demote" margin for him to be demoted. Jeff (talk·stalk) 03:29, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just looked on the Staff page and the inactive staff section states that bureaucrats and administrators who go inactive are automatically demoted to patroller by policy - no community vote required. In that case, wouldn't Dan automatically have been demoted without the need for this vote? Sam Talk 15:56, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • I looked at it. There should be an inactivity of 3 months before listing a staff member as inactive and demoting them to patroller.Myth(Leave your threats here/Want to Stalk?) 16:08, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
      • Bureaucrats can't demote other bureaucrats. They can promote and demote chat mods, patrollers and administrators, but can only demote themselves. So to get a bureaucrat demoted you need to ask Wikia Staff to do it. Wikia Staff won't unless they believe "community consensus" exists to do so - in other words there needs to be a large majority of people in favor of demoting. Over on Bully Fanon Wiki they made us keep a discussion open for 2 weeks over whether to demote the inactive bureaucrat who hadn't logged in for 2 years.
        I also noticed that VaultBoy demoted most of the inactive administrators/patrollers against policy and without holding a discussion on whether to do so, fwiw. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:17, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
        • Jeff, he was talking to other staff members whether or not he should demote the inactive staff. EagleIcon AndreEagle17 PS3 Triangle PS3 Cross PS3 Circle 19:40, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
        • As it stands yes 5, no 3, 2 neutral. The vote will remain open until Thursday but for now it stands as successful. I still stand by the statement of postponing the vote until August. Leo68 (talk) 05:03, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry Leo but you are wrong. As it stands, the vote is NOT successful. 70% is required to pass - even excluding the neutrals 5/8 is only 62.5%. smurfy (coms) 05:15, June 22, 2015 (UTC)
      • The vote is unsuccessful but I've told Tom that the vote will reopen in August if Dan's activity does not pick up, as this was agreed arrangement before the vote was requested. Leo68 (talk) 13:53, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

Myth hunter - Patroller

Closed as successful subject to probation by Leo68 (talk) 16:43, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am Myth hunter and I want apply for Patroller position on this wiki. I am regularly active here(Not edit regularly because I was a little busy this month but visit the wiki everyday). Chat moderating is also a part of Patroller and I am regularly available at chat. I have a good experience of being a patroller. I know how to use the tools. So, I would like to be promoted to protect the wiki from vandalism. - Myth hunter(Talk)


  • Yes (probation)- Leo68 (talk) 15:25, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Marec2 17:46, April 21, 2015.
  • Yes - Signature (talk/stalk/blog) 15:31, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 16:02, April 21, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • Yes (probation) - SJWalker (talk) 15:33, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Positive (probation) - Monkeypolice188-Signature LSPD Loudhailer-V-render StunGun-GTA5-ingame 15:38, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes (probation) - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:50, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes (probation) - DocVinewood (talk) 16:23, April 21, 2015 (UTC)


  • You are a good user but you once had an infinite ban that was lifted. Yes, you have changed since September which is why it is not a no. Leo68 (talk) 15:26, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Even 558 got blocked once. Signature (talk/stalk/blog) 15:32, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, I forgot about to tell about that ban in September. It was lifted the next day I was blocked. LSVault blocked me because I added some information on a wiki from GTA Wiki. At that time I didn't know about the plagiarism rule. I removed the info I added and talked to Vault and my block was lifted.Myth hunter
  • Of all the Myths wiki representatives, Hunter is the only one who actually helps this wiki, by editing articles and reporting vandals, I think he deserves the spot. Signature (talk/stalk/blog) 15:31, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • I've thought about it, and I'm putting my faith in you. However, taking into account what Leon said about your previous ban, I think probation would be best. SJWalker (talk) 15:33, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sam changing to a probation vote. It has helped already, Andre is a great example of how well it has worked. Leo68 (talk) 15:35, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Hunter is a very good contributer, however, I never saw the events Leon was on about, so I can't say YES without a probation. Monkeypolice188-Signature LSPD Loudhailer-V-render StunGun-GTA5-ingame 15:38, April 21, 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeing the work Myth has put in here, Myth deserves the job to me. He is also one of the few non-staff users who have helped change the community of this wiki, which is one of the most important things to look at when applying for promotion. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 16:02, April 21, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • I think you could be a good patroller, but I recommend probation first. If you're active and keep your good work I'm sure you will get the position. DocVinewood (talk) 16:23, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki