Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfA)

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia: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.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Elli 0 0 0 0 Discussion 16:53, 7 June 2024 6 days, 8 hours no report
Current time is 08:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Elli 0 0 0 0 Discussion 16:53, 7 June 2024 6 days, 8 hours no report
Current time is 08:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia 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.

There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 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 the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
DreamRimmer RfA Withdrawn by candidate 31 May 2024 45 43 14 51
Numberguy6 RfA Closed per WP:SNOW 27 May 2024 5 23 2 18
ToadetteEdit RfA Closed per WP:NOTNOW 30 Apr 2024 0 0 0 0

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] 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:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia: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[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, 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

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.[4] 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".[5] 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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 08:20:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Elli

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 16:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Elli (talk · contribs) – Hi everyone. I'm very happy to be back here to nominate someone I think would make a great admin: User:Elli. She's one of the few Wikipedians I've had the honour of meeting in person and I think she'd be a great addition to the admin corps. Elli has technically been a Wikipedian since 2014 but did not become consistently active until 2020. I believe this is more than enough time to learn the ropes of the project – despite how close that date feels sometimes, it was indeed four years ago. Elli has also accomplished something I have not: an FA (1964 Illinois House of Representatives election). She has also created 2 GAs and numerous other articles. My point is that she's clearly here and dedicated to the project. In regards to the more technical side of things, Elli is an experienced page mover and template editor – user rights where it's important for one to be able to follow instructions, not mess things up (or at least fix mistakes when they happen), and require good judgement. I strongly believe that Elli is well-qualified and passes what I look for in an admin with flying colours. I hope others agree. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination; I accept! Never edited for money and never will, and my alternative accounts are listed here (permalink). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I enjoy closing discussions and working in technical areas; my capabilities to do both of these would be significantly expanded with adminship. I'd also like to help deal with backlogs in other areas, such as unblock requests, once I'm more experienced and confident as an administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My featured article is definitely my best writing. I also am proud of my more behind-the-scenes edits; for example, I often help with editing protected templates as a template editor. I like being able to help people do things on the project they can't do on their own, in pursuit of making the editing environment more egalitarian: we should ultimately be equals here, even though some actions need higher levels of permissions than others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, but not recently. A few years ago, I got into a dispute with an editor that got quite heated (the dispute was over the details of how a particular template should work). After sleeping on it, I realized that having such an attitude would get me nowhere, and that I wasn't recognizing the other person behind the screen. I changed my attitude accordingly, we both backed down from the dispute, and now I consider myself on good terms with that editor (and I'm pretty sure they think similarly).
Nowadays, I generally disengage from disputes after a few comments; if my opinion is likely to gain community consensus, then I don't need to badger people into it, and if it isn't, then arguing just wastes time for no benefit. I'm not perfect, but I've avoided getting dragged into anything particularly messy or stressful.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Gog the Mild

4. What went well or not so well when you took an article through FAC? What was easy or difficult? What, if anything would you change?
Thanks for the question! FAC was overall a smoother process than I had expected. I was worried that people would be rather strict and nitpicky, but while people gave my article tough and honest feedback, none of it felt unreasonable and the reviewers were quite willing to listen and understand my perspective on how I wanted to present information in the article. My experiences with the GAN and FAC processes (both in nominating and reviewing) inspired me to write this (tangentially related) essay about some challenges in writing good/featured content. I don't have particular changes to suggest for the process at this point, though; I'd like to take another article at FAC first (hopefully soon, though it is a good bit of work). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Toadspike

5. Briefly, could you explain your massive spike in edit count in 2021, and the subsequent drop off?
A: Yeah. I didn't have much going on in my life in 2021 due to the pandemic, so I got quite into Wikipedia then. I started college in 2022 so I've had significantly less time and energy to edit (though I still care a lot about Wikipedia and spend a significant amount of time editing). Also, I've tried to split off some of my semi-automated edits to ElliAWB (note: the name is a bit inaccurate as I use it for other types of semi-automatic edits as well), so that makes the activity on my main account look a bit lower. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Conyo14

6. Hi there, since the last few RfAs have felt like job interviews, I shall ask a normal, easy question done in an interview. Do you have any hobbies outside of Wikipedia?
A: Yeah! In terms of similar projects, I also edit somewhat actively on OpenStreetMap. Outside of that, my primary interests currently are travel and board games. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Are there areas of this encyclopedia you favor over others? (i.e. politics, sports, Science, etc.)
A: I tend to edit about politics, elections, and current events; as a reader I often went to Wikipedia to find out about these topics so I like making sure our coverage on them is accurate, neutral, comprehensive, and up-to-date. However, I don't exclusively edit in those topic areas. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Lightburst

(Note: Q8 and Q9 have been deleted as inappropriate, so skipping them in the numbering scheme. Discuss on the talk page if you must. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Optional question from Hey man im josh

10. Every administrator has areas they choose not to work in, and that's perfectly acceptable. Opinions and interests change over time, but as of now, what administrative areas would you choose to not get involved in?
A: Since I'm not an admin yet, and my interests can often vary, there aren't any areas I can confidently say I won't work in. However, AE is an area that requires a lot of experience, and in which I have none, so I don't plan on making admin actions there without prior experience in user conduct administration. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from CanonNi

11. Your top 3 edited articles are 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election, GameStop short squeeze, and Fuck. You created the first one and brought it to FA; you also created the second one; but Fuck wasn't created by you, nor does it align with your interest in politics and current events. Could you expand on your contributions to the article?
A: Hah, yeah, thanks for reminding me about that one. At the time I started editing it seriously, I thought it was in good shape and close to meeting the GA criteria; I nominated it for GA and tried to improve it along those lines. This was a few years ago and before I understood the effort truly necessary to bring an article to GA, especially an article one that isn't the primary author on, and unfortunately the nomination did not succeed. If you're curious about the particular edits I've made, you can check them here; it's mostly removing excessive and unsourced content, adding additional sources, and copyediting. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question(s) from Sodium

12. You list your work in technical areas as one of the main reasons for requesting administrative (by extension interface-administrative) rights on the English Wikipedia. Could you give a few examples of your best work in these areas?
A:
13. What are your thoughts on the applicability of the bold-revert-discuss cycle to the technical areas of Wikipedia?
A:

Optional question(s) from Adam Black

14. You have quite an impressive history of contributing to articles. Do you plan to continue editing articles alongside your admin work?
A:
15. I noticed you are also a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata and have ten or more edits on at least 28 other editions of Wikipedia. In your opinion, how important is it for the various Wikimedia projects to work together?
A:


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Support
Per a recent RFC, this RFA is in trial for a new voting system. Voting opens at 16:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.
Oppose
Voting opens at 16:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.
Neutral
Voting opens at 16:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.
General comments
  • This is like Ghostbusters II: Elli has come to wash away the negativity of the last three RfAs. Since we're not allowed to !vote at this stage, I'll simply opine that I do not think Elli would not make an excellent admin. ——Serial Number 54129 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to go make some coffee before I try again to parse out this sentence. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was suitable language for a !!vote. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone gets it  :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too am excited to see this. I expect to support when the !voting opens (and not only to make amends for the fact that I missed the nominator's RfA so owe her one!). Girth Summit (blether) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elli has been on my list of strong candidates for a while now. I'm happy to see this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have more reading to do but my first impression of this candidate is quite good. I look forward to optional questions to learn more. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know we've been admonished for expressing quasi-pre-!votes, but all the same I'm prepared to say I'll likely support this request. < raps own knuckles > --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to comply with the "concerns" requirement. I have a concern about the lack of concern shown thus far by other editors. I also have a concern about Serial Number, but I always have a concern about Serial Number, and if no one gets that, I have a concern about that, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ok, I get it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like seeing a prolific content creator stand at RFA. I see a long patrol log, 50k edits, 50% main space edits, and a decent AfD history. It looks like the candidate was editing much more during 2021 than any other year 29,560 edits is three times more than other years. But we can probably say that was a covid thing. I hope to offer support after doing more checks but looks promising. Lightburst (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your assessment. I've asked the edit count question, since it was the only odd thing I found, and I assume others will wonder about it too. I assume the explanation is benign, but the candidate should have a chance to explain it. Toadspike [Talk] 19:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the candidate but her activity levels do not concern me at all as her nominator. Even after that spike in activity, she's still spending an average of 45 minutes a day on the site for both 2022 and 2023. [1] Also, edit count isn't everything. I think it's important to consider what I wrote here: If someone in the first group took an average of 15 minutes to make an edit (e.g. reading comments on a talk page before writing a quick reply, adding a citation to a previously uncited sentence in an article, etc) and they made 100 edits a month, they would be dedicating 25 hours of their time every month to Wikipedia. If their edits took an average of 30 minutes, they would be dedicating an average of 50 hours of their time every month to Wikipedia. I believe that even this level of activity demonstrates active participation and dedication to the project. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how does it know that... well that's a sobering look in the mirror. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightburst: To preface this, it's still a respectable patrol log, but their patrol count (9,008 based on Xtools) is misleading. There's quite a few patrols of non-mainspace pages for some reason which has seriously inflated that number, over 4,000 of which appear to have been marking templates as reviewed. Based on a quarry query, their actual review count would be 1,671 article reviews and 1,174 redirect reviews. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, at times I've tried to help patrol lesser-viewed namespaces. Lots of bad pages (tests, spam, etc) get created there and often avoid scrutiny for a while (you can see some examples at my CSD log). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last is based on quarry:query/83430? It's not accurate. It distinguishes between "article reviews" and "redirect reviews" based on whether the page is a redirect now, not what it was when it was patrolled; reliable data to distinguish redirect/non-redirect patrols doesn't exist for patrols made before November 2023. Worse is that it only counts reviews of page titles that currently exist: total patrol count including now-redlinked titles is 3093 distinct mainspace titles, 10110 in any namespace. (Even that won't see reviews of page titles so horrid that the log had to be revdelled or suppressed, but that's relatively rare.) It's only about an 8% undercount in this case, but could easily be much worse for someone who tags more pages for deletion.
    As an aside, the second part of that query is even more misleading. It's looking for deletion taggings, but has both of the same problems - so it's not "only 14 articles and 9 redirects marked for deletion", but 14 deletion markings made with the pagetriage tool on mainspace pages that are currently bluelinked non-redirects, and 9 that are now bluelinked redirects. It doesn't even tell us anything about whether those few patrols were correct: the deletion tag could have been rejected (whether as a speedy or at afd/rfd), or they could have been duly deleted and then a non-problematic version created at the same title. —Cryptic 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation Hey man im josh. After checking more I think it is still a great body of work. And Elli I am going to go sit in the corner now and come back when it is time to support your candidacy. I find your contributions excellent and I am sure you will be a great asset to the project in your new capacity. My questions were not born out of animus - they came from my genuine curiosity. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh it's absolutely a good body of work, I don't want to disparage it in the slightest. I just felt it to be an interesting observation. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the kind words, and no worries; I didn't think your comments were motivated by animosity. I don't particularly remember why I added that userbox, btw, other than that I was vaccinated and glad to be more protected from getting COVID. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like you already. I am going to leave the discussion but I am glad you were not insulted. I hope you break the 0-3 streak as SN has said above. Good luck! Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was on the fence with Elli, but with your stamp of approval, I feel propitious. — hako9 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback @Cryptic. I'm aware that there's an issue of "patrol" count on xtools vs actuality, for instance, reviewing redirects left behind from a page move don't add to xtools's patrol count. I also forked the query, but I didn't speak on the deletion aspect of it because I know it's incorrect and only counts deletions via the page curation tool. I personally always use Twinkle, so it counts mine incorrectly as well. I think being so heavily involved in NPP I missed out on providing some meaningful context because it's just so ingrained my mind. I'm sorry for that and I very much appreciate your comment. Hate to ask for anything but I've seen your quarry queries and I'd love and really appreciate it if you could provide a modified query that gives us more accurate information. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used a couple queries equivalent to what I've now put at quarry:query/83443, but this isn't really a good place to discuss it further. WP:RAQ's probably best (it might get seen there by someone who knows for sure what the distinction between those log types is; I don't). —Cryptic 23:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've seen, Elli's content work is excellent. I've given her some strawberries and she's completed some Challenges. — Bilorv (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not an admin?? Queen of Hearts (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistically speaking, she's a great candidate and 4 years is a long time, long enough to become an experienced Wikipedian. As a talk page "stalker",I notice she handles things pretty well. And people really seem too favour her as she's friendly. Doesn't look to bad. When votes open, I plan on supporting but a lil' digging won't hurt;⁠). Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 20:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pleasantly surprised by this candidate's content experience and was very happy to see the anti-vandalism work they've done, including with the semi-automated account ElliAWB. I don't know how to ask about it, but I'm interested to hear more about how this candidate would handle discontent with administrative actions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't witnessed Elli but from the little I can now, all I can say is that they are "one whom you think has the mop, but thanks it's near-near". Happy to see this, infact, lemme reserve my !vote for the time frame. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]



About RfB

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

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia 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

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
  4. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  5. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1226593202"