Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:50, 23 January 2004 view sourceFinlay McWalter (talk \| contribs)Administrators76,301 edits follow up question to uwe← 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}}
	]
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	]]
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Header}}<!-- ***Do not move this line, as it is not an RfA!*** -->
			{{bots\|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!--

			-->
	Here you can make a '''request for adminship'''. See ] for what this entails and for a list of current admins.
			== Current nominations for adminship ==
			<div style="text-align: center;">
			Current time is '''{{FULLDATE\|type=wiki}}'''
			</div>

			----
	==Guidelines==
			<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">
	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.
			'''{{purge\|Purge page cache}} if nominations have not updated.'''
			</div>
			<!-- INSTRUCTIONS
			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

			Please place new nominations for adminship immediately below the "----" line with the hidden comment, above the most recent nomination.
	Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for '''some months''' and contributed to and created a variety of articles over that time without often getting into conflicts with other users.
			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:
	If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to show yourself to be trustworthy (on the order of months). Any user can comment on your request—they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you.
			("There are no current nominations" message, hidden if there are open RfAs)
			---- (hidden comment "please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below ")
			----

			Ready now? Take a deep breath and go!
	After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a developer will make it so and record that fact at ].

			END INSTRUCTIONS -->
	* Discussion on de-adminship moved to ]
			{{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}>0\|\|<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey\|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>}}
			---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below-->

			== About RfB ==
	==Nominations for adminship==
			{{redirect\|WP:RFB\|bot requests\|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests\|help with referencing\|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
	''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 inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to '''reply here if they accept the nomination'''.''
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}

	~~''Please~~ ~~place new~~ nominations at ~~the~~ ~~top''~~		== Current nominations for bureaucratship ==
			<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey\|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
			---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->

			== Related pages ==
	===]===
			* ]
	I would like to nominate ] for adminship. He has been here since September and appears to have a good understanding of how Misplaced Pages works. He has put a lot of effort into the copyright violations page and other legal areas. I've had conflicts with him in the past, but he has always remained very civil throughout these, demonstrating excellent ]. I think he'd be a very trustworthy and capable sysop. ]] 00:30, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Oppose. JamesDay seems to think that nothing is copyrighted. ] 00:44, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	**That's not the impression I have gotten from talking to him on IRC. ] \| ] 01:16, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
	**Please see my reply to you saying something similar on . I've been on both the receiving and writing end of copyright infringement notices. Largest single loss from the actions of an infringer in respect of something I've written exclusively myself is US$20,000 - at least, that's the largest I know about. ] 16:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. I say he's definitely been involved enough. But what ''is'' his legal background? --]] 01:03, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	**He said that he has been following copyright cases, but that he is not a lawyer. I better let him answer in more detail though. ] \| ] 01:16, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
	***He's not a lawyer and I disagree with his views regarding the GFDL, but I don't think that precludes him from being a sysop. ]] 02:11, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
	**I'm not a lawyer. I've been involved in managing online communities and using the law relating to them since the mid 90s, so I have a fair idea of what US law relating to them and copyright questions within them says. ] 16:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] \| ] 01:16, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. -- ] 16:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support - appears to have a talent for puting up with the unputupwithable. -- ] 17:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. Whether or not his legal views are accurate is something I can't really judge, and is not relevant in any case, as I believe he's a trustworthy contributor who will not use his sysop powers to do anything anti-consensus. --] 23:28, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. As yet another non-lawyer, I am sometimes concerned that James Day's copyright opinions are not fully accurate (though never enough to be concerned about him as an editor--besides, I know far less than he does about copyright law), but I am always pleased by his thorough and generally clear reasoning in such discussions. Also, I do not believe that granting him sysop status will affect the copyright concerns at all--he will be no more or less likely to promote the stance that RickK objects to, and as noted above, I'm not convinced there's anything wrong with his stance. ] 23:50, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. Mr. McWalter, methinks thou havest une penchant pour le creatizzle of new wordages. ] 03:48, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

	===~~Roadrunner~~===		=== For RfX participants ===
			* ]
	] has made about 5000 edits, most of good quality. His contributions list registers his first edit on Apr 2002. Though this may not be accurate due to the glitch, I pretty sure he's been here longer than I have. --]] 22:07, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
			* ]
	* support. ] 17:38, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
			* ]
	* Support, copious contributor. (Maybe nominations should be switched to the top of this page so they'd be more noticeable.) - ] 04:13, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	* ''(Moved nominations as you suggest, though NB have no opinion for or against User:Roadrunner -- ] 15:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC))''
			* ]
	*nth. Can't believe a longtime contributor still haven't been promoted to sysop.] ] 00:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Support. ]
			* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
	*Support. I have seen him insert a quality NPOV compromise into a troubled POV debate/altercation regarding a passage, and thereby resolve the circumstance. He appears to have just the sort of judicial approach that would dignify adminship with his inclusion. ] 04:04, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. It's about time, and I hope he accepts. --] 16:55, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 05:17, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

			=== History and statistics ===
	<!-- Please place new nominations at the top -->
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

	==~~Requests~~ ~~for~~ adminship==		=== Removal of adminship ===
			* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
	''Please add new requests to the top''
			*]
			* ]

			=== Noticeboards ===
			* ]
			* ]

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

			== Footnotes ==
	I've been contributing for 7 months and I have about 450 edits. I have a good command of American English and I'm interested in a variety of subjects.
			{{Reflist}}<noinclude>

			]
	I really love the 'pedia and I want to contibute more by helping to squash vandalism. I would be conservative in my use of admin powers. My number of edits isn't huge, partly because half the time when I'm on the 'pedia I just read and read. I feel that my cruising around the database would be helpful in spotting nefarious user activity and stopping it quickly. I hope you will support my request for adminship. ] 15:20, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
			]
			]
			]</noinclude><!--

			Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
	* While not a high number of edits, it's not out-of-the-question low either. He has been here 7 months, which is a lot longer than most people who apply. His contribution history is encouraging, and I think he's established a history of trustworthyness. Support. ] 23:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
			-->
	* I don't think I can support just yet. Ike has certainly done some good things, but over half of those edits (which are definitely on the low end) have taken place in only the last month. The previous six months show bursts of editing for a day or two followed by long stretches of silence. Assuming ike continues to edit at the current pace, I think adminship would be in order...in another month, assuming ike had stayed around and showed real sustained interest here, I'd nominate him/her myself. At present, I don't feel comfortable doing so, unless there are multiple testimonials here from people who've collaborated with ike. ] 00:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. I think he can handle it. ] 02:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

	===]===


	I was invited by sysops to apply here to get sysop status again (after contributing over 45 own images - and moving one controversial, non copyrighted - and over 90 articles in seven languages)


	The old problems with a noncopyrighted image on human morphology (not an image from me, I moved it behind a warning, the ugly image was later banned totally by others) have been resolved, and I can cooperate in a normal way again on oceanographic topics if wanted

	Uwe


	*You haven't been active in a very long time. Some things have changed since. I would wait at least a month. Can you be more specific when you say "the old problems have been resolved." --]] 22:22, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	**Hallo Jiang! - there were problems with the presentation of some human morphology in the[REDACTED] project and we got into troubles with parents and students, some editing under my name. To protect students names I erased my own discussion page. After many months some others also found our way of thinking not too bad and the images are better and better placed now. I was on medical leave and am happy to work at all - a month is fine with me. Best greetings from uwe ] 23:07, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	***How do you plan to use your adminship powers and how you believe they will be useful to you for helping Misplaced Pages more? ] 23:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	****Hallo Optim! The same way I used it many months ago during over 1000 contributions. But it is really not a big deal, I only want to go with my full name if it is wanted by some @[REDACTED] - we have already enough work with our own servers. good luck to you ] 23:24, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*****I'm sorry, Uwe, but I don't entirely understand your answer to Optim's question. Are you saying that if you aren't made an admin, then you don't want to continue to edit wikipedia, and will instead edit on your own servers? Sorry if I've misunderstood you. -- ] 22:50, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose until Uwe has been here for a while again. ] 00:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. He's been around a while, even if not active recently, and has contributed quite a bit. Seems trustworthy, and I don't expect him to misuse any sysop powers or anything of that sort. If others don't agree, just stick around a bit and ask again in a month or two; having sysop powers doesn't actually make all that much difference anyway except for housekeeping type tasks. --] 23:33, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose. You've committed less than 50 edits since June. ] 23:35, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
	*I'm surprised that no-one seems to know who this guy is. Well, that's what you get for high contributor growth/turnover, I guess. You may want to consider reading the mailing list discussion regarding ] (for example ), and the thread regarding Kils' de-adminship .
	***I know who he is as I was one of the people who clashed with him back then. I have to say that his behavour afterwords was exemplary. IIRC he asked for his sysop status to be removed and made a point of apologizing to everyone concerned individually. I think he would probably make a very good sysop. Forgive and forget is my motto. ] 15:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	****It's quite true -- his behaviour afterwards was exemplary. But I'd prefer it if people would make an informed choice regarding this vote, as opposed to making a judgement on the basis of edit count as a number of people seem to have done. -- ] 04:09, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
	**If you would be specific I would respond - even though you come here anonymous ] 01:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	***Sorry, forgot to sign. I'm not making any allegations, so there's no need for you to respond. I'm not expressing an opinion on your request. -- ] 03:00, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
	****Hallo Tim! Thank you for your response. Any source is only as trustworthy as the total of its non anonymous, visible editors. ] 16:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Why do I feel as if I've seen you before many times, yet you havne't contributed much since June? oh, and Support. ] 03:50, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose. I think Kils need to be around for a while longer before he can regain the trust of the community. ]] 03:56, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
	**Hallo Angela! Maybe you can explain to the community and my students and me what horrible we have done. We moved an image with doubtfull origin and ugly content behind a warning in order to have an easyer living with parents who watched what we endorsed. Later this image was taken away totally by other authorities and today it is off. I asked to have my sysop status removed at that time, because I did not want my name associated with the kind of content available from[REDACTED] last summer. We were not the only ones who felt the content was beyond a good encyclopedia - it was a female image, by the way. It would be a good thing for[REDACTED] reputation if more editors would contribute under their real name, by the way --- ] 18:56, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	***I think the links Tim provided already explain that. For example, according to you were vandalising and making threats and you had your sysop status removed as a result of that, yet for some reason you are trying to hide that fact by suggesting all you did was move an image, and then saying you requested your sysop status be removed. It isn't possible to provide further evidence because according to the May 2003 deletion log you deleted ]. ]] 20:26, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
	****The Vikings asked me to delete their discussion page, and I also deleted mine and the history of edits - I was one of the Vikings (we were once over 25) - so what is the bad thing about it? ] 21:18, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*****Are you asking me what is bad about abusing sysop powers to delete pages that were discussing whether you should be banned? ]] 21:25, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
	******On these pages were real names, and we did not want to get them connected with the content of the summer. Why do you not work on banning viking? As one of the Vikings I ask you to do so. Please also delete all history of the Vikings. We Vikings are getting sick of the treatment and do not care to be a user anymore on[REDACTED] - we have not deleted anything over half a year ] 21:31, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose on the basis of the above conversation with Angela. --] 22:07, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

	===]===

	I've been here a little while (since August 2003, I believe). Not sure of my edits count, but it's probably a few thousand. I've created a fairly large number of articles in the fields I know about. I don't intend to use admin powers to any great extent, but it would be useful to delete nonsense and the like. Thanks.
	*Support. (although I sometimes confuse you with ]) ]] 21:54, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	*You confuse me with ]? So do I. I keep doing double-takes and wondering confusedly, 'Did I* say that?'. ] 21:59, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	***Me too. I'm not sure which of us was here first, that's about when I've started. Support, by the way. ] 22:04, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support: I'm surprised you're not one already ] 22:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	* Support: Why aren't you one already? :) ] 00:08, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ]] 00:18, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. This Morwen-Morven ambiguity is '''''SO''''' confusing. And they're both English! Although Ven = Men, and Wen = Women. But then when the users are ok people, I'm ok with the immense confusion. --] (])] 06:22, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. He writing my sort of articles. ] 18:58, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ] 09:06, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. FYI, the edit-count is greater than 1400. -- ]
	* Support. - ] 23:55, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

	<!-- Please place new requests at the top -->

	==Requests and nominations for de-adminship==
	''If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question.''

	''Note that there are alternatives to removing sysop privileges: a "clarification" or "request" from Jimbo is more likely than something so drastic.''

	* ] and ] recently requested their own de-adminship. Stephen cited the fact that he hasn't really been active here for quite some time. Danny didn't give reasons. He also deleted his user pages before he made his request. -- ] 11:47, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
	:*After negotiating with Jimbo, Danny returned on the 12th and asked via the ML for someone to undelete his user and talk pages (which I did). I suggest this request be put on hold until further notice. --] 10:17, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

	*

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 02:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page

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

Current time is 02:16, 23 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 02:16:11, 23 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