Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:53, 8 May 2004 view sourceCribcage (talk \| contribs)1,522 editsm =Misterrick= format heading← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:40, 18 January 2025 view source ToadetteEdit (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,052 editsm →Current nominations for adminship: -extra lineTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App section source
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Process of the Misplaced Pages community}}
	<div style="float:right;border-style:dashed;border-color:blue;border-width:1px;text-align:center;padding:2px;margin:2px;">
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	]<br>
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Header}}<!-- ***Do not move this line, as it is not an RfA!*** -->
	]
			{{bots\|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!--

			-->
			== Current nominations for adminship ==
			<div style="text-align: center;">
			Current time is '''{{FULLDATE\|type=wiki}}'''
	</div>		</div>

			----
	{{msg:communitypage}}
			<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">

			'''{{purge\|Purge page cache}} if nominations have not updated.'''
	'''Requests for adminship''' are requests made for a ] to be made an ]. These requests are made via nomination.
			</div>

			<!-- INSTRUCTIONS
	==Important notes==
			New nominations for adminship, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else, are placed below these instructions. Please note that RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you.

			ATTENTION: Your nomination will be considered "malformed" and may be reverted if you do not follow the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate
	Here you can make a '''request for adminship'''. See ] for what this entails and see ] for a list of current admins. See ] for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

	'''If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.'''

	==Guidelines==
	Current Misplaced Pages policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Misplaced Pages contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.

	Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for '''some months''' and contributed to a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies and procedures.

	:'''Nomination'''. Most users become administrators by being nominated by another user. Before nominating someone, get permission from them. Your nomination should be indicative that you believe that the user meets the requirements and would be an exemplary administrator. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.

	:'''Self-nomination'''. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you. Self-nominations are accepted, however. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure,.

	:'''Anonymous users'''. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.

	After a minimum 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a ] will make it so and record that fact at ] and ]. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.

	==Nominations for adminship==
	''Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to '''reply here if they accept the nomination'''.''

	''Please place new nominations at the top.''

	===] (4/3/1), ends 21:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)===

	AndyL is an amazingly efficacious user (see ). He is incredibly active and productive everyday. He is very skilled at circumventing conflict too, and trolls never seem to distract him or slow him down (I wish I could claim this skill). ] 21:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support'''
	#] 21:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 23:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Support strongly ] 02:51, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose'''
	#] ] 02:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC), look at his , he is a POV advocate, and not known for his civility, humility, nor respect for concensus.
	#:His Edits at ] and ], culminating in him arbitrarilly merging and redirecting the page are particularly telling, if your looking for brevity. ] ] 03:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Yes, he has a great deal of edits, but It is much too soon for adminship. I want to see further how he acts in the community. He needs more experience here. ] 05:39, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
	# This nomination is inappropriate for a number of reasons. It follows too soon after AndyL's last (failed) nomination. 172 sponsored that unsuccessful nomination, thus I find it bad form for him to sponsor nomination again, particularly so quickly. Finally, AndyL's first edit was barely a month ago, and the prevailing sentiment from his last nomination ("too soon!") still applies. ] 05:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Comments'''
	#It's less than 3 weeks since his by 172 was turned down. ]] 02:48, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

	===] (14/1/1)===

	He has made about 2000 (I believe) edits, many on medicinal topics, and has shown himself to be a conscientious and good contributor. ] 23:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

	:I'm honoured to accept. ]<BR>] \| ] 23:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''

	# Meelar
	# ] 23:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (Man, nominations are coming out of the woodwork -- is this an unusual trend, or just a sign that we're finally recognizing that many, many editors do outstanding work here -- Jfdwolff not least of them! -- and we're too slow to respond?)
	#*Something in the air, I suppose ;) ] 23:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. He's done some great work organising the ]. ]] 23:34, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	# Bummer, I wanted to nominate him myself. Support. ] 23:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 02:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 02:19, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:35, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 18:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ]
	# ] \| ] 23:05, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 14:31, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
	# ] 19:57, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose'''
	# Not enough edits yet, IMHO. Therefore, not enough experience yet, IMHO. ] 01:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Neutral:'''
	# Never heard of em. ] ]
	#:Take the time to review Jfdwolff's edit history. ] 00:24, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	===] (18/1/0) Ends 22:46, 10 May 2004 (UTC)===
	Another user who should've been made admin a while ago. ] 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	:Information only: Everyking, according to my count, has 5,200+ edits since beginning here in mid-February, 2004. ] 22:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	:Thank you, I accept. ] 23:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support'''
	#] 22:46, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#]\|] 22:56, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 23:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 23:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:11, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:39, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Very active. Support. ] 18:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like myself. ] ]
	# Support enthusiastically. Mostly I've see him on VfD voting to keep things I'd rather see deleted. However, a look the links on his user page shows him filling important gaps with good articles, especially on African politcs. ] 05:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Aside from Jfdwolff, he's the only editor I've heard of, currently on this list. I think that counts for a lot. -- ]
	# Inclusionism aside (there are far worse out there) he would make a very good admin -- ] \| ] 23:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Sysopship doesn't affect your VfD vote. Besides, you know any admins who have gotten in trouble for '''not''' deleting something? :) - ] 05:10, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 05:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 06:20, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose'''
	# Extreme inclusionist, voting on VfD almost like Anthony. --] 07:25, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	::How would that make him a bad admin? ] 17:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	:::It's a sign of bad judgment. --] 18:21, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	::::Hmm I tend to disagree, but no matter. The important question is IMO do you think he is likely to abuse admin power? In other words, have you ever seen him engage in dodgy behaviour such as deleting other people's comments, being abusive to people he doesn't agree with, getting involved in edit wars, that kind of thing? ] 20:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	:::::I never saw him being involved in any content dispute, so I can't say that he behaved either good or bad there, except the matter of the inclusion of 9/11 victims, where he accused people who considered those articles unencyclopedic as being "politically motivated", refused to accept the general consensus of not including those articles and instead insisted on having a vote on each of them individually. --] 21:52, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	::::::For the record, I have more recently done some editing on the 9/11 wiki myself, and I don't intend to participate any further in those votes, although I do still think they should be put to individual votes. I agree that the consensus on the matter is plain. ] 21:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

	===] (19/0) ends 18:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)===
	Jmabel has been around since October 2003 and has about 3,500 edits. He has done a lot of nice work, including many translations (which anyone who has tried will tell you is no easy task to do well). I think he'd be a good admin. ] 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	* I'm honored, but I'm not sure I want this. Could someone get in touch with me & clarify for me what it means? I'm pretty much happy with the role I've already carved out here... BTW, Jengod, I'm not a "she", Mabel is my surname. High school was hell on that count... -- ] 22:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	**OK, Jwrosenzweig has convinced me that if I'm assigned this and don't much use it, no one will be bothered. On that basis, sure, if there is consensus. -- ] 23:55, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''
	#] 18:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 19:32, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#"Thought she already was one." ] 20:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#Goodness, yes! Jmabel's work on ] alone (both setting it up and doing translations) is worthy of a barnstar. Ashamed I didn't think to check if he was an admin. ] 20:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 20:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:05, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	#What jengod said. ] 02:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#A qualified contributor who doesn't really want to use admin abilities, especially blocking, is all the easier to support. --] 17:07, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#No need to use those abilities, but I'm sure you'll find them useful on occasion. Support. ] 18:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 20:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC) support
	# Great editor. Support. ] 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 00:47, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:20, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# A talented and diplomatic polymath -- ] 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 21:48, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 00:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 21:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	===] (17/0/0); ends 18:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC) ===
	Don't know for sure if he fits the basic requirements in terms of contributions, but I really think so. He has been here a long time. Otherwise, I see no evidence he would be a bad sysop :-); I like his contributions; he is timid so won't do self-nomination :-); and finally I love the idea of french people on en: ]

	I do accept the nomination, thanks. :-) ] 07:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	:ah tout de même ! :-) ant

	'''Support:'''

	# About 2500 edits, btw. ] 17:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 19:26, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ]]
	# ]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 00:31, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] ] 00:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Reading antheres nomination, I feel a need to point out that my vote is based only on DM's polite, insightful, educated demeanor, and has no basis in francophilia of any sort ;)
	# ] \| ] 02:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 04:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC) (sigh, bureaucracy....)
	# ] 08:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 09:46, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	# Excellent choice; intelligent and fair editor. ] 16:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 20:27, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 02:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#There you go! -- ] 13:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 20:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose:'''

	'''Neutral:'''
	* <s>Kidding aside, if he's that timid, why would he want to be a sysop? But we'll see if he accepts.</s> -- ] 18:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

	===] (9/2); ends 08:44, 9 May ===
	A diligent copyeditor and writer - he'll make a superb admin ] 08:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

	:Thanks, I'd be happy to accept. ] 02:18, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support'''
	#] 08:44, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Looks good. ] 15:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 15:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 04:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 20:45, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 14:02, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
	# Beat me to it! ]] 22:50, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

	'''Oppose:'''
	# Far too few edits thus far. ] 00:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Excellent contributor, but he's only been here for two and a half months. Can we wait a while longer? ] 16:11, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Neutral:'''

	===] (18/0/0); ends 5:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)===
	Cyrius has done an enormous amount of ] as well as being (to my knowledge) trustworthy and reasonable—an expanded user page would help in this regard. He has made ~3,500 since 24 December 2003. ] 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

	:Wow, thanks, I accept the nomination. -- ]\|] 14:33, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''
	#] 05:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 05:58, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 06:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# He's done plenty of good maintainance work. I strongly support anyone willing to do that stuff on a regular basis. ;-) ] 06:57, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 08:12, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 13:37, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ]
	# I know it's a cliche, but I thought he was one. Support. ] 17:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 21:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 04:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Very active. Support. ] 18:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 00:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 06:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 17:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	'''Oppose:'''

	'''Neutral:'''

	'''Other:'''
	#<s>Support if he writes something more substantial that "Just some guy." on his user page and specifies an email address in his user preferences. ] 18:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)</s>

	===] (8/1/0); ends 9 May, 2004, 4:00 (UTC)===
	AlainV has been here since last October, and has made about 1000 edits. A good contributor with good writing skills. ] 04:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

	:Thanks! I accept the nomination. ] 06:49, 2004 May 2 (UTC)


	'''Support:'''
	# ] 04:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 04:40, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 04:49, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Very good choice - glad he accepted. ] 16:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 20:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. I believe AlainV's careful, detailed, fact-based edits to truly encyclopedic articles are uncommonly valuable. ] 15:42, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose:'''
	#Far to few edits thus far. ] 00:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Neutral:'''

	===] (7/5/4) ends 01:56, 9 May 2004===

	RomanM has a lot of experience in Misplaced Pages and has made really good contributions, about 1700 since October 2003. --] 01:56, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

	: Thanks for those words. Of course I accept the nomination. I'm already one of the administrators of Slovene Misplaced Pages, so the concept is not new to me. --] 05:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''

	# ]
	# See comment below. ] 04:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 14:04, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] Seems like a good contributor.
	# One edit war--on a small scale at that--shouldn't disqualify someone. ] 20:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Support, particularly after seeing the nature of the so-called "edit war" at ] and ]. - ] 13:22, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 18:29, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose:'''
	# ] - Not neutral, denying facts
	# Far too few edits thus far. Furthermore, many of the edits are minor changes. ] 00:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Excellent disambig and interlang work; we need more of it! And shows great patience in dealing with Avala. But I agree with KT, too few real edits, not that much interaction with articles or other en: editors (wasn't really active until Feb); could use another month or so, or a more illustrative record. ]] 09:26, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
	# Repectfully oppose. This is demonstrative of the uncomfortable position that ] creates through inappropriate nominations. ] is indeed a good, valuable contributor, and the disambiguation work and interlangauge links are a valid contribution. However, administrative matters are handled quite differently on wikis of various languages and I see too little community engagement here at en:. The lack of more substantive edits also gives me too little information to make an informed decision. I do appreciate ]'s excellent work and hope it will continue. ] 15:45, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 17:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Neutral:'''

	'''Comments:'''

	* I thought I should point out ]. I'm not saying there is necessarily any substance to the complaints, but I think Romanm should at least address the concerns on that page before becoming an admin. ]] 15:57, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
	* Unaware of this--neutral until explanation is given. My fault for not checking history thoroughly enough. ] 19:16, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	**This was not vandalism. It was a minor revert war (2 edits each per article) explained on ], involving Romanm and ]. Avala overreacted and posted a complaint on ]. ] 04:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	***I agree that it wasn't vandalism, but I'm not sure that ] was in the wrong. In any case, while third-party views are helpful, I'd like to hear directly from ]. ] 06:39, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	****Please see ]. In short: apparently four political parties in Serbia made up that Slovenians killed 40 unarmed yugoslav soldiers during the independence war and decided to sue both of Slovenian presidents for it. It didn't bother them that Drnovsek was not in commanding structure of the Slovenian Army at that time (he became premier in 1992 and president in 2002). The "news" about those political parties going to court was published in Serbian newspaper ''Blic'', but it seems that even it editors didn't think much of it since it was published among car accidents and catching drug dealers chronicle. Somehow Avala thought that this news deserves to be on pages about ] and ] and pasted it there, but I disagreed and reverted the article twice. This is what I have to say about this. --] 13:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	****The supposed charges aren’t getting a lot of attention even within Serbia, and it should be noted that Blic is a sensationalist, tabloid newspaper. --] 20:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	* I agree with Meelar that one edit war shouldn't disqualify someone from becoming an admin. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to require some distance between that edit war and the user's promotion. ] 03:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	** I'm uncertain that any number of edit wars should disqualify someone from becoming an admin. Edit wars are frequently required when people who are more interested in advancing political POV than in building an encyclopedia take hold of an article. Romanm was good about posting reasons on talk pages, and was calm and rational about the process. I have no objection to someone playing hardball against a troll. Frankly, letting idiocy stand in articles is far more harmful to Misplaced Pages. Also, it should be noted that Avala's first edit was March 11th, which is not three months ago. If I recall correctly, one must edit for three months before one can vote here, no? ] 00:48, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	Sorry ] but Blic is not asensationalist, tabloid newspaper. It was the only newspaper that was not under Milosevic power. It is owned by Germans today.
	Romanm nobody madeup that shooting. That happened and Slovenians maybe don`t admit it.
	Stop denying masacres .
	I am not denying that some Serbian-Milosevic para-military forces were killing Bosniaks.

	I think that Romanm shouldn`t be administrator because he is editing articles in the way they show Slovenia as the best country with no faults.
	He is like a judge while he is fanatical rooter of other team.
	'''He is not neutral at all!'''
	'''He is denying facts!'''
	--] 10:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

	: See ] for my side of the medal. --] 11:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

	Your side of the medal has traces of innocent blood on it!
	Mentioning Bozo the Clown in shooting discussion is more than disgusting!

	''' Shame on you!'''
	] 11:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

	===] (22/2) ends 23:06, 8 May 2004===
	Dr Reeve has been around for a few months, and has contributed good articles and some very nice images. I have not checked the number of edits, but the quality may be seen in the exemplar ] and ]. -- ] 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)

	:I'm pleased and flattered to accept the nomination. Thanks! - ] 18:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''
	#] 23:06, 2004 May 1 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 23:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC) Myk's a good calm editor who'd make a great admin.
	# ] 00:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC) I thought he was one already
	# Nice writings. --] 00:22, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#550 edits is plenty for me, esp. when they're of quality. ] 00:52, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 01:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# A review shows generally calm and composed behavior while working on the alternative medicine articles. ] 02:20, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Contributor since December 14, 2003. I'm not concerned with frequency or number of edits: He's been around awhile, and he produces quality work. I support 100%. ] 03:02, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Much excellence. ] 05:56, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ]
	# Calm and thoughful. ]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 11:27, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Misplaced Pages is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --] ] 19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 19:32, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC) More than enough edits for me to conclude that he'd make a trustworthy admin.
	#I don't know what 200-300 more edits would tell me that the excellent 500+ haven't already -- there's been plenty of time for Myk to get into trouble if that was coming. Does very solid work, in my experience. ] 16:10, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#His work so far is good enough evidence of qualifications. Let's not set our edit count expectations so high that people have to make Misplaced Pages a full-time job for six months to become admin. --] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. Supersolid, involved contributions. Good choice. ] 20:07, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. User has ~= 650 edits. He takes pictures, too! :) - ] 13:26, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ] 23:06, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 14:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose:'''
	# Far too few edits, IMHO. ] 00:50, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Maybe in a couple more months. ]'''] 00:53, 2 May 2004

	===] (14/6/4) ends 07:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)===
	I am nominating Rei for adminship. Though we differ politically on a number of issues, I have seen her grow in skill and patience in dealing with difficult issues, good qualities in an admin. She has been here since August of last year and created or edited quite a number of arcane subjects before taking a break, and I think Misplaced Pages would benefit by encouraging her to take a broader role here. ] 07:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

	:I accept. I am especially glad to see Cecropia offer the nomination. Thank you, Cecropia. If accepted, I will try to do the position justice, and will read over the guidelines again thoroughly if accepted. As I was not expecting this nomination, I would only use admin powers upon request of other users in conflicts that I have not personally been involved in. If anyone has any questions or suggestions, please feel free to get in touch with me. --]

	'''Support:'''
	# ] 07:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	# A solid contributor who has never allowed a contentious issue to afect her treatment of the article. ] 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 20:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 23:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 07:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Misplaced Pages is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --] ] 19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#* Note that several qualitative objections have been raised, below. ] 06:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 10:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Wholeheartedly support her nomination, Misplaced Pages and Wikipedians will benefit.
	# Changing my vote from neutral after discussion on Rei's talk page. I think she'll be fine. ] 23:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# After careful review, I support. ] 03:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. I have faith that the user can be trusted to refrain from using administrative powers in a controversy. - ] 13:04, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ]\|] 13:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. Cecropia and Rei should balance each other nicely. ;) ] 01:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 09:29, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
	'''Oppose:'''
	# I can not strongly enough express my opposition to Rei as an admin. ] 20:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
	#: You're certainly not compelled to explain your vote -- but a remark like that leaves a question hanging in the air. If you chose to elaborate, people could judge whether they agree with your objection. ] 05:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#:: I believe that Rei will be prone to abuse her admin powers in articles she is personaly involved in ], and that is why I oppose her nomination.] 16:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#:::], cam you show any particular example of misbehaviour by ]? I can show several of yours, you are even listed as a . ] 20:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#::::That means next to nothing, as anyone can list anyone as a vandal. In this instance it was done by the non-credible 172. -- ]] 00:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#:::::172 is an admin and we provided evidence of vandalism. ] 18:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#:::::: Vandalism pertains to articles, not talk pages (]), if that were the case 172 would have been banned long long time ago. ] 18:46, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
	#::::::: As you know very well and as can be verified at you did not restrict your misbehaviour to talk pages. And at any rate, comments like "suck your own dick" and "only limp-dicked historians doubt my opinion" are unacceptable wherever you make them. You still failed to show any particular edit of Rei you regard as inappropriate. ] 02:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	#:::::::: Urg, the only reason I am listed in the vandal section is because you put me there (]). You are fabricating your own evidence. ] 02:34, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
	#::::::::: I have removed personal attacks from this listing. You are not helping your cause. - ] 14:37, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
	#:::::::::I did not list TDC as a vandal, he was already listed. I only added evidence of his vandalism. And he still failed to show any particular edit of Rei he regards as inappropriate. ] 22:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Not yet enough edits, IMHO. ] 00:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	# '''Respectfully''' oppose. I think that Rei is a well-intentioned user, but she's not ready for admin status. This should be of major concern. Her edit summary here was, "Vote being taken on the talk page. Protecting until then." However, this would be more disconcerting had she been an admin to begin with, given that it was an attempt by her to prevent changes to an article on which she was actively editing. I also question her understanding of how an encyclopedia is supposed to be organized. She misunderstood my arguments ] consistently on ]. ] 01:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#: As I mentioned on your talk page, I had at that point not read over the guidelines for page protection, which I did immediately after you commented, and I apologized to you. As for not understanding your arguments, I respectfully have to disagree. You decided to rearrange a page against the wishes of several users on the page, and reverted the very edits that were attempting to resolve your problems because you didn't look at what changes were made before reverts. If you would like to continue the discussion about the page, it is still open over there. --]
	#::I wasn't saying that the "page protection" was anything more than an honest mistake. I think that it can be read as a sign that perhaps more time is needed to learn the ropes. ] 21:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#I was reserving judgment until I saw how things played out during the ''ad hoc'' mediation/revision attempt at ], but after Rei's posting today on the ] I have to oppose for similar reasons as 172. ]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 00:34, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
	#::Can you explain that? I am puzzled that she claims not to have seen the revision page but I cannot see anything wrong with what she wrote on talk. ] 02:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
	# Respectfully oppose. Seeing as how there's no clear consensus, I read through Rei, TDC, and Cecrophia's edit history to try to get a sense of what's going on. I haven't encountered Rei before except seeing a brief edit of hers at the D9 cat page. Upon reviewing the edit history, I am concerned. While Rei has a number of excellent edits, the most valuable of which are on mushroom-related topics, most of her recent edits have been at politically charged current-events articles, such as ], ], ], and various Iraq-related topics. These articles offer an editing experience that is quite outside the mainstream of Misplaced Pages. And since Rei has only been active since January 20 (plus a one-month period in August 2003 and a handful of edits in between), I question whether she has had the opportunity to internalize the Misplaced Pages "way of doing things." I would hope that she would be nominated again after she gains more experience with the project. ] 22:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
	#:Without ] the ] page would be the personal allegation page of ]. ] 23:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 17:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Neutral:'''
	*<strike>I would have opposed due to her behavior during Cecropia's nomination (when she and several others opposed Cecropia based only on his political views,) which is the only time I've come into contact with her. But since Cecropia is making the nomination, obviously he's comfortable with her, so I'll give my assent if not my support. ] 23:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)</strike>
	:We did not oppose ] because of his political views but because of his misbehaviour, shown by a . I however have to admit that when doing this I had not really informed myself enough about what adminship means and to whom it should be granted. ]</strike>
	**Discussion continues at ].
	# I think Rei will make a fine admin and hope she works on some non-controversial topics and is nominated again in a few weeks. ]] 09:16, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
	#]] 01:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC) I had difficulties with Rei earlier on, but our more recent interaction was more agreeable. That could be luck though; without more experience I can't say (as Cecropia does) whether Rei has gotten "more into the groove" of Misplaced Pages or not. So, not opposing or supporting at this juncture.
	#A few valid concerns have been raised. ] 04:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#I think the instance 172 highlights is enough to make me wary. Whoever was in the right in that edit conflict, putting a page protection notice on an unprotected page that you are in the process of an edit war on is just bad form. I'd want to see some explanation/apology for that before I support. ] 07:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#:She explained and apologized, see above. ] 20:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#::Once again, I think that she's a well-meaning user, and that this was probably a benign confusion more than anything else. I just said that it's a sign that she may need more time to learn the ropes, that's all. ] 21:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	*<strike> If she promises to start using four tildes when signing her name I will switch my vote to support. It's so annoying when people don't date their talk entries.</strike> ;-) -- ]\|] 21:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	*: Ok, I will! :) -- ] 21:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	*::I was just about to change my vote when I noticed that you let the Daily Mirror photos into the ] article. That, to me, shows a serious lack of critical thinking. The source of the photos and the discrepancies within the photos themselves show that they are likely to be fake. Telling the truth is one thing but perpetrating hoaxes that may incite hatred and get people killed is another. :-( ]\|] 21:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	*::: I supported the removal of the pictures. Check the history. I didn't do it myself, but I only saw the page one time during that time period, and since the pictures are still being disputed, I decided not to get involved at that point. My main concern was to provide a link (I don't think we should be directly putting in pictures that contain nudity, since the site should be safe for work) to the photos that are generally accepted as authentic. -- ] 20:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	*::I'm changing my vote since I promised; although my last concern still stands, I think that on balance Rei is likely to use admin power conscientiously. ]\|] 13:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

	===] (16/0/1) 04:37 8 May 2004 (UTC)===
	I'd like to nominate ] for adminship. He's been here since October 2003, and is a very effective poster and diligent in protecting Misplaced Pages from vandalism. ]'''] 04:37, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

	:Thank you very much for the nomination, RickK! I humbly accept. Being an Admin would greatly help me with fighting vandalism, and I hope to be a good admin. -- ] \| () ] 05:16, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support''':
	#RickK
	#] 04:44, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 05:20, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 07:33, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 08:12, May 1, 2004 (UTC)#
	# ] 15:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 15:03, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 23:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 01:54, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 04:57, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 10:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 20:24, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 18:25, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:01, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
	'''Oppose''':

			Please place new nominations for adminship immediately below the "----" line with the hidden comment, above the most recent nomination.
	'''Neutral''':
			Please leave the first "----" alone and don't forget to include a new "----" line between the new nomination and the previous one as shown in the example.

			Example:
	# This objection removed by the poster - see below.
			("There are no current nominations" message, hidden if there are open RfAs)
	] The artist formerly known as 195.188.152.16
			---- (hidden comment "please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below ")
	:User ] has alleged Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages.
			----
	::'''This is a serious allegation of removing some probably valid information. He should substantiate it.'''<br>
	:I do admit (stupidly and I regret) replacing '''modemac'''s page after he reversed all the edits that I had taken a long while (and carefully) to add, which are informative and useful, and which are not in violation of any wiki-pedia guidelines that I can discover.
	:My contributions also cover several topics (as anyone can check).
	:He is unsuitable for admission until he substantiates his words, and until he stops taking a God-like approach to other caring contributors.
	:He caught no vandal !
	::Please be aware ] that anons don't have the right to vote in this debate, neither do people who don't sign their comments. -- ] \| ] 12:55, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	:::Validated by ]
	::::<small>''Snippet from ]:''</small><br>
	::::Made a number of edits to musician sites, mainly adding a link to and subpages, and removing some probably valid information from the pages. Now he is vandalizing the page of ], who reverted his edits. His ''contributions'':] -- ] 01:38, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	::::<small>''End of Snippet''</small>
	::::Adding links is no vandalism. Your actions on the page of ] was. Back then your actions were vandalism, and you got banned for a short period (not by me, I just alerted others to your actions). I see that you apologized to Modemac, and got a login as ]. I think this is the right thing to do, and is promising for your future contributions. I'll contact you directoy on your talk page soon. -- ] \| () ] 14:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	:::::My relationship with ] is improving. Details on ] -- ] \| () ] 15:39, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
	::::::] concurs and removes objection after reasonable consultation. If ] had taken more consultative approach this would not have started.
	:::::::Please sign your comments (by typing four tildes, like <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). It makes conversations easier to follow. Also, at the risk of sounding impolite: Try using short, complete sentences, and pay attention to your pronouns. I try not to criticize folks' writing, but I've honestly had difficulty understanding this thread. Thanks. ] 17:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

			Ready now? Take a deep breath and go!
	==Self nominations for adminship==

			END INSTRUCTIONS -->
	===] (1/0) ends 06:12, 15 May 2004===
			{{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}>0\|\|<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey\|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>}}
	I would like have the opportunity to serve the Misplaced Pages community on a higher level. I have made many contributions and have proved myself to be reliable, I am on and monitor the Misplaced Pages site on a regular basis and I get along with other Misplaced Pages users including many of the admins. In my contributions you will see that I have kept my composure when pages that had contributed to were vandalized, Either I or another Wiki user reverted the page back to it's original text without any outbursts or anger on my part. I have also created a few new Misplaced Pages article which I thought would be in the interest of the Wiki community. I would also keep my ] program open and set to the #wikipedia channel on the freenode.net server in the event that a user (including admins and newbies) need to contact me posthaste. ], 07:10, 08 May 2004 (UTC).
			---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below-->

			== About RfB ==
	'''Support'''
			{{redirect\|WP:RFB\|bot requests\|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests\|help with referencing\|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}

			== Current nominations for bureaucratship ==
	# Support. Less than 500 edits -- but they date to October 2003, and they all look good. I know Kingturtle prefers to see 3000+ edits from admin nominees, but I think promoting different personality types is helpful. There are some who can afford to spend upward of four hours every day working on Misplaced Pages, but that's one certain type of personality -- and I don't think that personality type should dominate the admin staff. I'd like to see different types of people among the admin ranks, and Misterrick appears an ideal candidate. ] 06:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
			<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey\|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
			---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->

			== Related pages ==
	'''Oppose'''
			* ]
			* ]

			=== For RfX participants ===
	'''Comments'''
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

			=== History and statistics ===
	==Requests for bureaucratship==
			* ]
	''Please add new requests at the top of this section''
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			=== Removal of adminship ===
	==Other requests==
	*Requests for adminship or ~~bureaucratship~~ on ~~other~~ ~~Wikimedia~~ ~~projects~~ ~~can~~ be ~~made~~ ~~at ].~~		* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
			*]
	*Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta can be made at ].
			* ]
	*Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at ] following consensus at ] that the bot may run.
	*Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at ].

			=== Noticeboards ===
	==Possible misuses of administrator powers==
			* ]
	*]
			* ]
	*]

			=== Permissions ===
	]
			* Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at ].
	]
			* Requests for other user permissions can be made at ].
	]
	]
	]

			== Footnotes ==
			{{Reflist}}<noinclude>

			]
			]
			]
			]</noinclude><!--

			Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
	]
			-->
	]
	]
	]
	]

Latest revision as of 18:40, 18 January 2025

Process of the Misplaced Pages community

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship

v t e Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators	Noticeboard Requests for adminship watch talk talk archives Administrator elections watch talk De-adminship Recall Adminship reform unbundling Successful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Unsuccessful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Resysopped administrators Inactive administrators Former administrators
Bureaucrats	Noticeboard Requests for bureaucratship Bureaucrat discussion Bureaucrat activity Successful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological
AdE/RfX participants	Advice for RfA candidates Guide Miniguide Optional RfA candidate poll RfA nominations Request nom Self-nomination Advice for voters Asking questions Arguments to avoid Debriefs
History & statistics	RFA reform RFA by year RFA by month Desysoppings by month
Useful pages	Searchbox RFX report Logs User rights log Old log Meta log Meta old log AdE category RFA category
Current admin count: 848 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 15 (list all)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	S	O	N	%
Sennecaster	RfA	Successful	25 Dec 2024	230	0	0	100
Hog Farm	RfA	Successful	22 Dec 2024	179	14	12	93
Graham87	RRfA	Withdrawn by candidate	20 Nov 2024	119	145	11	45
Worm That Turned	RfA	Successful	18 Nov 2024	275	5	9	98
Voorts	RfA	Successful	8 Nov 2024	156	15	4	91

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 19:54:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

There are no current nominations.

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Misplaced Pages:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners. Shortcut

WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship