Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, 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
Significa liberdade 65 0 0 100 Open 22:18, 21 September 2024 6 days, 2 hours no report
Current time is 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Significa liberdade 65 0 0 100 Open 22:18, 21 September 2024 6 days, 2 hours no report
Current time is 19:46, 15 September 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. It is approved for one trial run, which will take 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 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 %
Asilvering RfA Successful 6 Sep 2024 245 1 0 >99
HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe RfA Successful 15 Jun 2024 201 0 0 100
Elli RfA Successful 7 Jun 2024 207 6 3 97

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] 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 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.

Monitors

Shortcut

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.[6]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 19:46:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Significa liberdade

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (65/0/0); Scheduled to end 22:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · she/her) – I couldn't be happier to be nominating Significa liberdade for adminship, a solid content writer and friendly backroom contributor since 2021. I first came across her work when I saw a compelling DYK hook she wrote on Maggie Tokuda-Hall; she has eight other DYKs, plus dozens more articles covering authors, poets, academics, and the occasional sportsperson :) she received the Editor of the Week award last year for her work in writing and maintaining Titan submersible implosion, where she's still the top author! I discovered later that she's been quietly doing tons of good work for the project in the trenches of NPP, where she's processed thousands of new articles – which, for her, is its own crash course in copyvio, categories, CSD, and probably other useful things that don't start with 'c'. She also pitches in at AfC and does lots of maintenance and gnoming work across the site. In my interactions with Significa liberdade, I've found her to be unfailingly gracious, open to criticism, and patient with new editors' complaints and questions. With that, I'm delighted to submit Significa liberdade for the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

When looking at Significa liberdade's experience, I could not help but think that she was more qualified than I was when I nominated myself back in December. She's active in areas that require you to think a lot, but she manages it with grace and skill. While everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses, ideally we balance each other out. I first noticed Significa liberdade from her work as an active new page patroller. It's work that requires extensive policy knowledge and people skills. I think I can easily trust her with the tools. Just look at all the people telling her to go for it over at ORCP! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and confirm I have no alternate accounts, I have never and will never edit for pay, and I am open to recall. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:13, 14 September 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: My primary reason for wanting to become an administrator is to use the mop to clean up messes I find rather than simply flagging messes so someone else can clean them. Through my work with New Page Patrol, I often encounter potential issues that need to be addressed by someone with the mop and/or could be supported by administrative tools. For instance, I often encounter articles I suspect are G4 eligible, but without access to deleted revisions, my best option is often to add the page to the backlog. I also encounter articles that have previously been G5-deleted, but without access to the deleted page, determining whether the creation is legitimately new or also block evasion is challenging. Dealing with these cases would be much easier as an admin because I could see the evidence more clearly and action the issue myself rather than burdening another admin. In addition to these issues, I regularly uncover articles with copyright violations that require revision deletion. As an admin, I could handle these tasks more readily rather than adding to the existing backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I became interested in editing Wikipedia to improve coverage for underrepresented populations; as a content creator, I stuck to that idea by creating over 550 articles, most of which relate to women, LGBT+ folks, and people of colour. Beyond this, I have improved hundreds more articles in smaller ways by adding references, cleaning up formatting, etc., not to mention my work with NPP and Articles for Creation. In this role, I combine my skills of writing content and helping newer editors find their footing. Getting started on Wikipedia can be confusing, and receiving feedback on an article you created can feel like punishment. In my role with NPP, I try to make these early experiences less stressful and more rewarding and beneficial so these editors continue contributing to make Wikipedia better.
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: Disagreements naturally arise on Wikipedia as they do in real life. My goal in any situation is to approach with a level head and assume good faith. The latter is especially important when communicating via text when nonverbals such as tone of voice, facial expressions, and gestures are unavailable. When handling disagreements, I call to mind and/or search for relevant policy, then seek input from the community as needed. Importantly, whenever conflicts or disagreements arise, I reflect on my actions to better understand how I could do better in the future, which has helped me continuously grow as a Wikipedian and person.

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 Lightburst
4. When you first log on to Wikipedia each day, what are the first few areas of the project that you look at or edit?
A: When I first log on to Wikipedia every day, I review any notifications I’ve received, then review the Page Curation tool for NPP. Beyond reviewing, I often have lists of articles to improve, whether those are existing categories (e.g., novels needing citations) or articles I’ve bookmarked for later review.
5. You make 42 edits per day and have written many articles; what motivated you to start editing Wikipedia four years ago?
A: Honestly, I’m not sure what the exact impetus was! I made relatively few edits for the first year and a half (though many related to literature), then became much more active in early 2022. I had recently moved to a new area and started a PhD, so I was in need of new hobbies. Lo and behold, Wiki was a good one!

Optional question from HouseBlaster

6. Some people find "fun" questions not strictly related to your suitability as a sysop to be a nice distraction from the stress of RfA. Others find them to be an unpleasant annoyance. Do you want people to ask them?
A: I’d welcome such questions. I can understand editors potentially finding the questions to be stressful, but I also think they can provide opportunities for the editor to showcase their personality and how they respond to unexpected situations.

Optional question from TheNuggeteer

7. Why did you continue to stay in Wikipedia?
A: As an educator and learner, editing Wikipedia taps into multiple core aspects of my identity. The more I’ve learned about Wikipedia as a resource, including its founding function and ongoing goals, the more I admire it and want to make it a valuable resource. Beyond this, as I’ve continued editing, I’ve had the pleasure of becoming part of the community.

Optional question from Tryptofish

8. Looking over your talk page and its archives, I'm seeing a large number of articles and drafts that ended up being deleted. Is there a reason for there having been so many of these? Thanks.
A: Although my talk page and archives have a large number of notifications regarding deleted articles, the articles in question are rarely my own creations. While reviewing articles for NPP, I often edit articles that may be later nominated for deletion. For example, I might update formatting or references, add maintenance tags, or remove copyright violations. Because I am thought to have significantly contributed to the article, I receive notifications when they are nominated for deletion. Of the 560 articles I have created, only 5 have later been deleted (see xTools). The deletion rate for drafts is higher, though this is skewed by the number of published drafts. Other drafts are often deleted because I started a draft article on a subject I thought could be notable but didn’t end up finishing the draft.
Oh, of course. Thanks for the very reasonable answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Levivich

9. Liberdade as in "speech" or liberdade as in "beer"?
A: This brings to mind the great debate between freedom from versus freedom to (also known as positive/negative liberty), which results in numerous misunderstandings regarding freedom. In this particular case, my editing and contributions are free (as in “beer”); otherwise, our freedoms to/from need to co-exist in a harmonious society (as in “speech”). Wikipedia is most valuable as a free (as in "beer") and open (as in "speech") resource , but we also need guardrails to protect both the encyclopedia and its editors.

Optional question from an IP user

10. Some administrators believe that it is a good practice to "procedurally" decline "stale" unblock requests based solely on the fact that no admin cared to attend to them for an extended period of time. What are your thoughts on that subject? Would you ever "procedurally" decline a "stale" unblock request?
A:

Optional question from Cullen328

11. This is by no means a trick question and I ask it out of genuine curiosity. I had to work my way very slowly through college in the 1970s and it took me quite a few years to earn a bachelor's degree due to my personal financial realities. I would have loved to pursue a PhD but it was not possible due to marriage, two children, home ownership and starting a small business. I notice that you wrote I had recently moved to a new area and started a PhD, so I was in need of new hobbies. That surprised me a bit, because looking back, if I had the opportunity to pursue a PhD, that would have occupied the vast majority of my mental energy, and new hobbies would not have been a priority for me back then. All people are different, but I am a bit curious about your desire for new hobbies at that specific point in your life. Can you shed any light on that?
A:

Optional question from Ganesha811

12. Early in your tenure on Wikipedia, you added copyrighted material to a couple of pages (Best Fiction for Young Adults and Catch-22). An experienced editor noticed this, revdeleted the copyrighted content, and dropped two notes on your talk page. There was also a problem on a draft a few months later, which also resulted in a note on your talk page. This is a common issue for many new editors. In each case, you eventually removed the note without commentary and they no longer appear in your talk archives. To be clear, I don't think this is remotely disqualifying - none of the issues were egregious, they were early in your time here and evidently without ill intent, and have not reoccurred. However, I am curious about how these incidents shaped your editing, and how they shape your approach to working with new editors now. As an administrator, how would you make sure you are getting through to new editors about our policies? How do you balance making sure policy is followed with the danger of driving away productive contributors via rule-laden warnings?
A:

Discussion

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. as nominator :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support per nom. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, she is definitely an excellent, qualified user! Hope for the best! JuniperChill (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support! I've seen Significa around in NPP circles and admire her commitment to the project and her consistently collegial attitude. I feel she would put the mop to excellent use. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Good luck. Polygnotus (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Clearly can make good use of the tools and has the correct temperment to be entrusted with them. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. To reiterate what I've said ... twice ... I am talking about what I'm talking about. No questions will be taken. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. i actually kind of just assumed they were an admin already... either way, i like these nominators and the answers to the questions above. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. You must be a fantastic editor if you get both leeky and Clovermoss to nominate you. On that basis alone I would land in support. But if that is not enough for you, Significa liberdade is a kind, productive, and helpful editor. Even if granting the mop were a big deal – and I firmly believe it should not be – I could not be more enthusiastic in strongly supporting this nomination :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support More than qualified for the tools! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support I came into their WP:ORCP entry with no preconceived notions, and quickly got a strong impresssion of a productive and knowledgable user who is both kind and informative in their interactions with other users. Seems like good admin material to me. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A good user with a good disposition and is clearly competent. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —Ingenuity (t • c) 00:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely perfect candidate! Wonder why they're not an admin already. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I am SO pumped to pass Significa liberdade the WP:BATON, and not just so that I never have to see another one of her G4s again. I've been working alongside her at WP:AfC and WP:NPP for quite some time and can attest that she is kind, helpful, patient, and possessing of multitudinous clues. As soon as it no longer felt like throwing stones in a glass house, I went to pester her to run. Excited to vote in support. -- asilvering (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: Oh hell yeah. I'm just salty I didn't get to nominate them! Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support: per nom, and good luck! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 00:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - no concerns, thanks for volunteering to wield the mop! Loopy30 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support - Why not? Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support — looks good to me — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support — As someone who often creates news pages, I appreciate anyone who does NPP! Jenny8lee (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Mach61 01:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, positive interactions wherever I've seen this editor. Star Mississippi 01:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Healthy pie chart, adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Be a good admin. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support of course! Elli (talk | contribs) 01:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I recognize that username! Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Clear use case for the tools, even temperament. I looked into the candidate's record some time ago, and I was impressed by what I saw: I was just too slow to follow up. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I trust her to be a good admin. New admins and old admins need each other to be accountable, and she would be a good fresh admin for a fresh time. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Excellent content creation record twinned with excellent NPP work is a sure sign of an thoroughly excellent contributor. GraziePrego (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Don't see any issues here. Would be a net benefit to the project. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I've seen them around and they seem like a really solid candidate. I give them my support with no hesitation whatsoever. Has the right temperament and experience. Thank you for volunteering! Netherzone (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Ok. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Trusted user. I expect her to use the tools well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support: Prolific producer of high-quality content with both subject matter and tool expertise. What more can we ask for in a prospective admin? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - not a jerk, has a clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support I've only run across their work a few times but it's always been high quality. Reviewing their articles and edits all I can say is "WOW"! Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: SLD is sufficiently experienced and qualified for the mop. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: It is a rare delight to encounter someone who spends more time improving an article than just slapping templates "needs improvement". ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support thanks for volunteering! – DreamRimmer (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Thanks for volunteering! Levivich (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support: It's hard work staying patient, Rjjiii (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support, I've seen them around in the NPP server and have had positive interactions across the board with them, both in the context of AFC and NPP. I have no doubt that they will be a capable admin. Sohom (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support: Happy adminship. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support It's a yes from me.--A09|(talk) 11:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. – robertsky (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support — have seen them doing good work at NPP. And of course I would trust a nomination backed entirely by plants. Cremastra (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I have noticed their good work at NPP, best wishes Josey Wales Parley 12:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Looks good to me. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Fuck yes Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 14:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 15:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 15:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Thank you for volunteering your time with Wikipedia. jengod (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  58. SilverLocust 💬 16:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: No concerns. I've come across her a few times at WP:DELSORT/LIT. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Leijurv (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  61. A-OK --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Not much, if any, personal experience with this candidate. But ... two nominators who have been nothing but a credit to the project themselves since getting the mop, one of them even recently named Wikimedian of the Year (sorry, had to mention that), and a lot of other high-quality support make this an easy call. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support - sure why not? ResonantDistortion 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per nom! Ryan shell (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments

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.

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.
  6. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1245757685"