Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
AlanM1 28 17 6 62 18:30, 29 July 2014 4 days, 14 hours
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), 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.

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

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 impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs update
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
Arumpostasest RfA Withdrawn 12 July 2014 0 12 2
StringTheory11 RfA Successful 04 July 2014 84 17 7
A.Minkowiski RfA WP:NOTNOW 25 June 2014 0 13 3
Deor RfA Successful 16 June 2014 95 16 0
Grfr12345 RfA WP:NOTNOW 4 June 2014 1 0 0
Go Phightins! RfA Successful 29 May 2014 138 0 2
Picapicacuckoo RfA WP:NOTNOW 23 May 2014 0 1 0

The community grants administrator status 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
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant contributions to the encyclopedia are low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as 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.
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|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". 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 relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfA, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The 'requests for adminship' process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even 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 in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and give more weight to constructive comments over unproductive comments.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Nominations remain posted 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. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. While the Neutral comments are ignored for calculating the RfA's percentage, 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. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. 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 complete to close an RfA may be found here.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer.
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 several months before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (28/17/6); Scheduled to end 18:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


AlanM1 (talk · contribs) – Alan's been here since 2008 with no blocks or (as far as I can tell) no substantial user conduct/behavioral issues in the past; per WP:DEAL, that alone should qualify him for administrative tools. If he were going to break things, he would have done it before now; we shouldn't hesitate to trust Alan. The guy's participated in activities that require admin tools; although it clearly wasn't the first time, my first memory of interacting with him involved a set of pages that needed to be deleted — last September, Alan was filling CAT:CSD with numerous {{db-move}} requests because a large number of pages, such as Hamirpur district, were at the wrong titles and couldn't simply be moved over redirects. Aside from occasional obvious errors, he clearly was filing correct requests, demonstrating familiarity with numerous relevant policies and standards. Together with his six-year pattern of editing, it looks clear that he's ready for the tools. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and would like to thank Nyttend for his suggestion. If accepted, I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend Wikipedia. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that I'm identified to the WMF (verify; one of only 845 WMF project users globally) and I have worked in WP:ACC with security-sensitive issues. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I have run into the need for an admin in a number of areas in which I've worked, including page moves, editing of fully-protected templates, and user-related problems. I tend to be available at times that are rather thin (like U.S. overnight), and come upon vandalism and other violations, which would benefit from immediate admin action (i.e. blocks, revdel). It would be good to be able to take care of these things myself, instead of having to waste someone else's time. That is not to say that I'll "shoot first and ask questions later" – I try to remain aware of my level of knowledge and have no problem deferring to others or asking for help when I'm not sure of the correct course of action. I don't have plans to get involved in user drama unless required, at least not in anything that isn't an obvious decision.

By way of example, in the U.S. early morning on July 24, in a typical couple hours patrolling the user creation log, I found a vandal in progress[1], warned[2][3] and cleaned up[4][5][6][7] after them (another user ec'd with me at AIV[8]). A bit less damage would have been done, and the time of two other users not wasted, if I had been able to pull the trigger myself after the second swastika.

Next, I found, cleaned[9], and warned[10] another destructive editor, and another[11][12]. Next up was a promotional username reported to UAA[13]. Then, there was another destructive editor[14][15].

I then worked with an admin on a problem user from a couple days ago at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#CIR_problem.

Finally, there was another vandal[16][17] and a destructive editor[18][19].

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I believe my strength is my attention to detail, which allows me to spot things that others miss. I've done a lot of work on grammar and flow in poorly-written articles, but have also found issues in Good and Featured Articles. As a programmer, I've also enjoyed working on templates and would like to do more in that realm, especially with the power that Lua has added.
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: I don't know if I'd call it stress – after all, it's not Real Life. My occasional beefs have been relatively minor and I try to take care to prevent escalation, as the situation dictates. If all else fails, I can walk away from a particular issue and not lose sleep over it. I add it to my "ToDo" list and may come back to it later when everyone's had a chance to think about things and we may be able to reach a solution; or I can just let it be, depending on how important I think it is to the wiki. I also have a sense of humor, and a cat, both of which can dissipate a fair amount of stress.
Additional optional questions from Mkdw
4. Do you actively participate in mop 'n bucket areas that do not require the use of the sysop tools (i.e. Recent changes, RFC, AFC, etc.)?
A: I joined the Account Creation Team in response to a plea for new members to help clear a backlog. I'm not currently active there, so I don't know what records are available, but perhaps one of their admins can share some stats.
I've also worked around the edges of admin (what's available without tools), including answering questions at the WP:HELPDESK, and participation in WP:ANI where possible.
A look at my contribs to User Talk (mostly of IPs) will show a lot of the anti-vandalism work.
Here's an example of a more involved IP vandalism issue that I helped with.
While I don't come across too many currently active vandals (they are mostly drive-by or longer-term problems), I count 16 reports to AIV in the last 23 months in my contribs to Wikipedia namespace.
5. Have you ever edited Wikipedia using another user name? If so, are you willing to disclose those accounts?
A: No, I have not.
Additional question by Dennis Brown
6. AFD performance is one of the most important metrics to me, but your experience is almost non-existent. Are there other experiences or words that would reassure those of us that consider AFD experience critical?
A: I generally believe deletion of an article to be the most extreme solution. I am familiar with, and have used, the criteria for speedy deletion, applying to the "obvious" cases (i.e. those that I would expect to WP:SNOW 90/10 or more if questioned). Speedies aside, other than for notability, or because it belongs as part of another article, I'd rarely want to delete an article, choosing rather to improve it (or have it improved).
I'll also note that I generally try to comment on my reasoning instead of just !voting, so looking at what I've written in the few I've done may reveal more than cold stats. Also, here are two examples that are not in the report:
Additional question from BrownHairedGirl
7. In your answer to question 2, you explained that you would like to do more template editing. Please can you explain why you have not already applied for the Wikipedia:Template editor user right to allow you to do that.
A: No? I just hadn't gotten around to it, really.
Additional question by MusikAnimal
8. Could you elaborate on Q1? Specifically, what are the "user-related problems" you are referring to? Do you plan to handle any of the WP:ACSD requests?
A: I'd rather not get involved in user squabbles related to behavior, other than obvious, bright-line issues like threats and such. Having been on the user side of ACSD, it seems like something I can do well, so I would.

@MusikAnimal: Please see new addition to A1, above. This is the type of stuff I prefer to participate in.

9. Could you provide some examples of what you consider your best work? Are there any articles you are particularly proud of? What about templates?
A: This may take a while to assemble. While some might not think 8,000 edits is a lot, perhaps my memory is failing, but I don't remember the details of edits just a few hundred ago.
Additional question from Lord Roem
10. You mention one of the administrative areas you're interested in helping out in are user-conduct issues ("user-related problems"). With that in mind, here's a scenario to look at: You've come across an edit war on the Abortion article. The edit war is long and drawn out over the course of an entire day. Editor A made a bold edit of contentious material with a weak source. Editor B has reverted the material three times while Editor A has reverted the material back in twice (both used rollback and neither are sysops). No talk page discussion has occurred, and no personal attacks in edit summaries. However, Editor A has said "read the source" in the edit summary and Editor B has said "Source not valid" in theirs. Both editors are registered users in good standing with at least a year of project experience. How do you handle the situation?
A: To begin with, this is exactly the type of work I don't want to get into. On the face of it, it seems a content dispute is the type of thing that is usually kicked from ANI back to WP:3O or for the users to RfC and get some different views. Editor B may deserve a 3RR warning or minor sanction. If you want, I can study it further. I'm apparently wrong. No surprise (bolded primary thought).
Additional question from Lord Roem
11. There's been some discussion of your understanding of AfD. I want to give you a chance to show your thought process when approaching this area, even if you only intend to spend limited time here. I went to the AfD page and randomly picked a still-open discussion (see here); additionally, this is an AfD that went to deletion review, again something I randomly picked (see here). For both of these, explain how you would !vote, and for the still-open AfD, how you would go about determining consensus and closing it.
A: Again, I do not intend to work on something with which I'm not familiar. That means I wouldn't touch either unless, as an editor involved in the article, I was familiar with the particular issue enough to know what the correct course is. If you want me to cram through the guidelines to learn what to do, I can do that, but I'd really rather work on other things.
I'm trying to gauge how you think. No matter what admin work you do, there will be a time and place where you're going to make a judgement call on something. Even if it's just your initial reaction, I'd be grateful if you could at least look at the first of the two AfDs and give me your sense of the discussion. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Your trap in Q10 (Mkativerata let the cat out of the bag below; congrats – well-played) is exactly why I can't answer, especially not about a (random?) article about gun politics! —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I make judgement calls every day in my work here, patrolling for vandals, deciding on warning severity and type, deciding whether a fact should be present or needs citing, looking at sources and deciding on reliability, proposing CSDs, deciding whether a move is controversial or not, contributions to various guideline discussions (e.g. MOS), etc. My edit history is open for viewing.

Also, I worked at ACC/ACT for a while, making dozens of judgement calls regarding potential new user accounts, including deferring some to others with different skills. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

General comments

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

  • Nyttend, would you reflect on your nomination statement, as it may give the wrong impression of the candidate's experience. You say, "Alan's been here since 2008" and "his six-year pattern of editing" which suggest an active and experienced user, yet they have only been actively editing since 2012. Edits before then were fairly sporadic, such as only 12 days in 2011. Oppose comments are picking up on the candidate's lack of experience and involvement, which appears to be at a dissonance with your nomination statement. The assumption is that when a respected admin nominates someone and says they have a six-year pattern of editing, that that means active and purposeful editing, which when the candidate's contribution history is examined doesn't seem to be the case here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The guy's been here for seven years (not six, as I said), and quite active over the last three. Are you really saying that three years isn't enough for being an administrator? This is far more than necessary to demonstrate (footnote at end) that he won't abuse the administrative tools. I passed RFA in late 2007 (something like 1¼ years after registering), and when Jimbo began making people administrators, nobody had been around for more than 2 years and 1 month: had anyone demanded what's here being demanded of Alan, we wouldn't have had any administrators until 2004 at earliest, and most of us current administrators would have failed miserably. Footnote: of course I know that the only comprehensive way to demonstrate future-non-abuse of tools is proper usage, but that can't be shown without tools. Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is that your statement implies a more active early participation than has been the case. Each person will assess the candidate based on the evidence presented; and each person will have their own views on what is sufficient involvement in time and edits for a candidate to have accumulated the level of trust, knowledge and judgement to be voted in as an admin - my views may differ from yours or anyone else's - it's a personal judgement call which will vary from voter to voter, but what shouldn't vary is the evidence or facts on which to base that judgement. A nomination statement which says: "Alan's been here since 2008 making occasional edits, and since 2012 has become more active, editing almost daily and helping out in various areas, including the Help desk...." is more helpful to the candidate because it presents the full facts, which are actually quite positive when presented that way, and prevents people being surprised when they go to his contributions. What I am saying is there is a dissonance between your statement and what people are seeing, and that could be prompting more opposes than would be the case if the nomination statement was worded differently. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Even Pedro noted my extended wikibreak at my RFA, and I've always noted the same for candidates that I've nom'ed, so I agree, it is for the benefit of the candidate as much as the community. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


  1. Meets my standards for tenure, edit count and what not. Excellent main space / project space balance. In addition this [20]impressive handling of a difficult user, and your quality answer to Q3, all assure me. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. ///EuroCarGT 20:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. Edit count fine. Q1 shows tech. 20 AIV is enough for vandal. I like to see more content in Q2 and Q3 (evidence/links!). (Part of Q3 raises an eyebrow.) Glrx (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Glrx: I clarified A3. Hopefully that was your concern? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    No. It's OK to be in a dispute and decide to walk away from it. It's also OK to have a todo list of articles that need to be fixed or expanded. I'm leery of the notion of "walking away" that includes a note to come back later — is that really walking away? The practice can be benign, but I know some now-banned editors who employed the tactic. (Re clarification.) Glrx (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I want to be clear that it's not an "I'll be back" (a la Schwarzenegger) list – the purpose of walking away is to give both sides time to reflect. I may or may not come back, depending on how it looks with "fresh eyes". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Based on the nominators recommendation, and the lack of any serious issues that I've seen. I prefer candidates with more experience in quasi-adminstrative areas, but will just urge AlanM1 to exercise caution (or even better, participate as a normal editor for awhile first) before using the admin tools in areas they are not already familiar with. Monty845 20:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'd like to point out that right up front, in A1, I tried to make it clear that this is exactly how I work. The wonderful thing about WP is that there is always expert help available – there's really no need to just "wing it". If anything, this process has made me even more aware of that than I already was. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support per nom :-) Bbb23 tells me "You're supposed to do more than just nominate, Nyttend - it's usual to also support". Is this what's expected? Just asking for !votes from my peeps since Alan didn't do his selfie RFA, yo. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support — Whilst more involvement within anti-vandalism areas such as AIV would have been great per the candidate's own admission that they encounter vandalism in the hours they're online – I see no major underlying problems with their editing and judgment (albeit a few minor errors, which they are quick to fix), and I'm satisfied with their answers to the questions, thus far. Alan, I wish you all the best! —MelbourneStartalk 23:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support Suitable temperament (very important, IMO), clean block log and a use for the mop. The candidate seems to understand the learning curve for adminship, and should do a good job. Miniapolis 01:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Support. Has clearly shown a need for the tools, and is unlikely to break anything. I'm not concerned about the rather low number of edits (after all, quality >>> quantity), and the user does not say he wants to work in AfD, so the low participation in AfD does not bother me either. As Pedro mentions, that pie chart is just about ideal also, IMO. Candidate seems intelligent. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC) moved to oppose. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support. I've taken a look at the candidate's template edits, and he easily passes the template-editor granting guidelines, so I can't see any reason to oppose based on him not having applied for the template-editor right before. Adminship also permits editing of some templates and other technical pages that the template-editor right does not, such as cascade-protected templates and MediaWiki messages, so there is good reason not to limit competent editors to the non-admin user rights. Temperament and tenure look good to me, and I'm not concerned about AfD participation seeing as the candidate hasn't said he wishes to work in that area. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support Seen AlanM1 a few times around wikipedia and seen nothing that makes me think they would be a bad admin. PaleAqua (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. I am convinced that this editor is sufficiently tenured for adminship. You don't need to have 10,000+ edits to be considered experienced, and I'd put quality over quantity anyday. Kurtis (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support - Nice answers. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 08:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Support Overall, I am fine with AlanM1 becoming an admin. Jianhui67 TC 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support because I can't see any reason not to. Deb (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support Happy to support Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 15:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  15. Support The nomination and support votes are very convincing. A net positive considering the clean block log and generally good temperament. Minima© (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support per nom, Mr. Stradivarius, and answers/discussion by candidate. Yup, AfD work is weak, but I see no indication that is an area he is pining to work in, or that he would wield the mop in any way other than measured. His ability to work with templates makes this adminship a NETPOSITIVE. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Support. 2 years is more than enough experience and I see no reason to think the candidate will abuse the tools. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support - Great editor, worked along side at ACC and has been around template ares of late. Remember not all content editors make good Admins. Good luck, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support – Has enough experience, and I really have no idea why his lack of AfD participation is so concerning. Where does he say he wants to work at AfD? Of all admin areas, why is everyone so concerned about a lack of participation in AfD over anything else? TCN7JM 02:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  20. Support. I don't think AfD experience is that important if it isn't one of the main areas he is interested in. -- King of ♠ 06:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support- active vandal fighter who would make good use of the tools. Unconvinced about the experience based opposes; I think the candidate has plenty of experience. PhilKnight (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support. AlanM1 should stay away from deletion—he lacks appropriate experience. However he has sufficient contributions in other areas to make use of the other tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  23. Support - positive temperament and attitude. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  24. The nomination statement is a bit of a farce, but the candidate himself is more than qualified. As an aside, I hope some of the comments in the oppose section are just attempts at humor; "only been active two years" and "only 8,000 edits" are some of the more outrageous objections I've ever read in an RfA. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    Why would we oppose just to be funny. I have seen these types of arguments used in dozens of previous RfA's. Ones that have succeeded and some that haven't. JayJayWhat did I do? 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  25. Support. Rzuwig 18:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  26. Length and competence of service is a better indicator of future administrative performance than edit counts (whether edits generally or edits in particular areas). Because of those two indicators, I have little doubt that if AlanM1 ever did want to perform AfD closes, he'd do it conscientiously, gaining experience first and acting with care. Some of the answers to questions of course aren't great -- Question 10 for instance ignores the 1RR sanctions that apply to the Abortion article -- but really, not every admin who happens to 'come across' the edit war needs to know that. In reality, the situation in Question 10 would get reported to AE and dealt with immediately there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  27. Support I see people saying opposing based on what areas this guy hasn't taken part in. What about the areas he does take part in? He doesn't have to take part in everything as an administrator. 6+ years, clean block log, several thousand edits and a willingness to take part. Sounds perfectly good to me. ~Frosty (Talk page) 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  28. Support He has been here since 2008, has a clean block log, and I see barely any issues here. I think he'll make a good admin. StevenD99 02:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Less than ten edits in AfD unless I bungled my search. That is a very important area from my perspective since it gives us an idea of how a future Admin approaches article retention and deletion, as well as their grasp of guidelines and policies. This is not an irreparable problem though. Spend some time in AfD and come back in six months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hopefully not badgering, but your oppose seems to be based on an absence of evidence they'll do well, as opposed to actual evidence they'll do badly? Also the candidate states in Q1 they intend to use the bits for "page moves, editing of fully-protected templates, and user-related problems" none of which are relevant (or only tangentially so) to deletion. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not badgering at all. I appreciate your comment and for the record, you are mostly correct. When casting a !vote for a future admin I do indeed require evidence that they will do well since if we make a mistake, it's extremely difficult to unring this particular bell. While I appreciate the candidate's stated intentions with respect to where he will be mostly working, the tool box still comes with the 'delete article button.' He may, or may not ever use it. Once it's been given to him though we can't go back and say, "you said you wouldn't use that tool." So yeah, if he has it, I want to be as sure as I reasonably can be that should he choose to use it, he will do so judiciously. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Pedro, I don't think describing an oppose rationale citing inexperience is necessarily done justice by calling it an oppose "based on an absence of evidence they'll do well". Experience is something earned and a widely accepted standard in many assessment processes. An editor with only one edit may then meet your criteria of no "evidence they'll do badly". That and experience are not mutually exclusive of each other. My counter argument to the oppose would be to point out that there are ways AlanM1 can show an understanding of policies as well as competence in applying them outside of AfD. Mkdwtalk 21:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    The above comment and the subthread that developed from it has been moved to the talk page at the request of Pedro. --Stfg (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I also want to see evidence that they will do well. Any new user can show a lack of evidence that they will not do well. I disagree with the premise of the nomination, a user can be a great editor since day 1 of Wikipedia, that does not mean they will be a good admin. Chillum 21:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply Ad Orientem; it's a perfectly fair reason to oppose (albeit that I disagree with it!) and I appreciate your expanded reasoning. Chillum - that's a bit of an unfair (if not slightly odd) reading of my comments. I'm not advocating we hand the tools to editors with three edits on the basis they "haven't screwed up so far". This is a tenured candidate with thousands of edits - deletion may just not interest them. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    I modified my comment when I realized my wording was ambigious. My original point was that absense of poor behavior as an editor is not evidence of good admin behavior, I guess I made it poorly. Chillum 21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - Candidate is much too inexperienced. Total of 7,999 edits when I checked a minute ago. He has exhibited a Veteran Editor badge (requirement 8,000 edits) since February 24, 2014, when he had (checking his contributions) only about 7,000. Kraxler (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Comment: @Kraxler: Actually, he had 6500 edits on the ENwiki and 2800 on Commons (according to that edit), so that's more than enough. I don't really see why that would be an issue. Remember that a user's number of edits doesn't show their level of experience. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Please note that my edits are all manual (or slightly assisted with Twinkle, etc.), and that I tend toward grouping many changes together into a single edit instead of many individual saves. A lot of it is time-intensive copy editing, finding and checking cites, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    The answer to Q6 is not good. It shows that the candidate has no experience in this area, and that the candidate is unwilling to research before answering. Besides, in March (4 months ago) he voted "Oppose" in an AfD (Lighting designer), although that is not an option according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute. In the other discussion (Anshei Sfard) stated a personal opinion, without citing a guideline, and not answering the concerns of the nominator, see also WP:NOTVOTE. Later also added "if there isn't a guideline that makes this clear, there should be" meaning that if the guideline doesn't support one's statement the guideline should be fixed so to fit one's opinion. Well, I think people should argue according to the guidelines, not demand guidelines according to their opinions. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Re A6, I never claimed experience in AfD, and am unaware that it's a hard requirement, or I'd have likely declined the nom. I did take the time to find two more votes that didn't get included, and asked to fix a third one where the closer used a syntax the report didn't understand. Assuming Dennis didn't want me to just invent experience I didn't have, I talked about what I did know, and my understanding of the concepts involved, which is about all I can do.
    As far as the syntax for voting, I don't see any clearly-defined list of options at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, something that's always disturbed me. I assumed it was a free-form thing for this reason, and used a word that I (and others) routinely use in this type of thing. Perhaps that's the programmer in me, but I don't think it's unreasonable. Picking on syntax, when it's poorly (or not at all) defined, though ...? As far as a solution, it seems like a template, with an error thrown if not one of the defined choices, would solve the issue. I often see people vote using words that are unusual. Even an experienced closer did so, as mentioned above.
    Re Anshei Sfard, point taken – mea culpa. I was being lazy and didn't want to look up the relevant policy, making what amounts to the "common sense" argument instead. I try not to do this.
    I caught up to date by reading the diffs, and saw your original post regarding the service award. I'm glad you retracted it. For the record, my count is global, including deletes, based on WP:Service awards § What is counted.3F I smalled this because these things are, by definition, just wall decoration, and not meant to imply anything at all – just a little levity to make the experience more interesting. If I thought it would routinely lead to misunderstandings such as this, I certainly wouldn't bother with it.
    —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Re "As far as the syntax for voting, I don't see any clearly-defined list of options at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute" - It says "Usually editors recommend a course of action (my bolding) in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view." That is IMO clear enough, either you vote by choosing any one of the bolded examples given (most used are "keep" and "delete") or you recommend any other action that could be taken concerning the article. I don't think that one can "oppose" or "support" an article, or the nominator, because, at AfD, voters are required to debate or state rationales to keep or delete, under the guidelines. It is also possible just to post a "comment" when you are in doubt about whether to keep or delete, and ask other users to clarify statements or consider additional guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't agree. The quote line can not be read as a finite list of terms to be used – they are in a list of examples that ends with "or other view". I don't think there is a finite list. If there were, the rules would/should be written differently (e.g. a bullet list with meanings), there would/should be an editnotice telling you what to do or, better, a template to use, etc. This would all be pretty standard elsewhere in WP, and so it's not an unreasonable conclusion that there is no finite list.

    Assuming random editors, and not just a group of "regulars", are supposed to be able to vote on RfDs, I believe we need to clarify this issue in the docs and with a template.

    As far as the meaning of "Oppose", the title is "Articles for Deletion" – "oppose" pretty clearly means opposing deletion. I used it because it's commonly used in other vote (and vote-like) situations (e.g. RfCs). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  3. Seems like a nice guy, but doesn't have enough experience where it matters to instill trust. The nominator playing the "no big deal" card so early in the nom statement does the candidate no favors. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I brought this up because it's only the most relevant section of the most relevant policy. I do hope our closing bureaucrat ignores this vote, since we routinely ignore votes that challenge policies instead of implementing them. Nyttend (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hm, an opinion that the candidate is inexperienced isn't necessarily a contradiction of the No Big Deal policy. Andrevan@ 06:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Hm indeed! The WP:DEAL policy does not say that giving the tools is no big deal. What it says is: Stated simply, while the correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct should be considered important, merely "being an administrator" should not be. (my italics) The nomination statement, like most mentions of WP:DEAL, seem to be calling for a casual approach to RfA !voting, which is not what the policy says or implies at all. The policy is saying that sysop status implies no great "authority". --Stfg (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Nyttend, please quote where I challenged a policy. If you can't, you owe me an apology. Townlake (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Unless I completely muffed my checks this user hasn't created that many articles for his length of time on Wikipedia. Although it first appeared as he had, it turns out most are just redirects. I would like to see him more involved in the creating of articles. If I am wrong please tell me. -- NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Creation of articles is not something I'm interested in doing, or even necessarily good at. I'm better at editing/polishing/categorizing existing work. IMO, that's what makes WP appealing – people are free to choose their work, something we often don't get to do in our real jobs and lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose The candidate's presentation does not provide any evidence that he is qualified to conduct administrator duties. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Not enough AfD participation. AfD is an important part especially in deleting articles. He has only been active for about 2 years and just because he joined in 2008 and doesn't have any blocks doesn't mean he is ready for the mop. Just by that standard I could be a admin. JayJayWhat did I do? 17:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    @JayJay: Why don't you run? We could do with some more admins. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as unexperienced - Not enough AFD participation & Only been active for 2 years despite registering 6 years ago (I have no problems with inactivity but IMHO it just seems too long), All's I suggest is contribute more in AFDs and perhaps retry in 6-8 months time, Good luck in future RFA's tho. –Davey2010(talk) 20:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I really don't understand this statement. I was actually inactive on WP for over 40 years. Why does it matter when I registered? I've been "active" for about 2.5 years, making over 8000 enwiki edits manually. There are voters on this page with less experience.

    If AfD is a requirement for adminship, then that should be made clear, and it would save everyone a lot of time. It seems at odds, though, with the appeal for more admins to help with backlog, to focus on lack of experience in one area instead of experience in many other areas. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

    If you read Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship it does mention that AfD is seen as an important area among others. Chillum 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  8. Oppose- Doesn't have enough pieces outstanding work to showcase, his content contribution/writing is lacking. His best contribution is grammar work, I'd like to see him write a fairly high-quality article. Also lack of participation in AfD matters as everyone has already mentioned, but more importantly, an apparent distaste for the idea of deleting articles is not good for an admin, who has so much power over deletion matters. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The breadth of his demonstrated competencies don't match the scope of the tools he's requesting. I would like to see more content creation and more time putting forth sound arguments in AfD. I'm also unimpressed with his characterization in Q6 of article deletion as an "extreme" solution, as it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the deletion criteria and why it exists. GraniteSand (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    It is an extreme solution. It's the most extreme solution possible. That doesn't mean that it should never be used – just that it should be used judiciously. CSD identifies the bright-line reasons and there are other situations that require analysis, discussion, and judgement. How is that wrong? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Deletion of an article is not an extreme solution. It is routine and policy calls for it all the time. The lack of AfD experience compounds this concern. Would support later when more experience with deletion is demonstrated. Chillum 18:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Per Chillum and the evasive answer on Q11. If such questions don't get answered, it basically becomes impossible for us (in the absence of regular AfD contributions) to judge the candidate's ability to evaluate such discussions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose After the evasive answer to the questions I posed above, I'm convinced this is more than simply an editor who hasn't been a large participant in AfD. Rather, I have significant concerns about whether AlanM1 has some of the necessary skills and competence for the mop. Not all admins work in all places, true, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some core policies they need to know upon going into the role. Q10 only required a look on the talk page to understand the DS nature of the article. Even more, he insists that this isn't the type of work he'd want to do despite it being on his list in Q1. I also think his characterization of Q11 is unfair. It was a chance for him to show how he evaluates a debate on the site, something he will have the ability to judge--whether he does or not is irrelevant--in his capacity as an administrator. It was a chance to gleam some insight on his decision-making process and he instead chose to pivot. That in itself, if nothing more, is a sign we need to be cautious with this nomination. I have no doubts AlanM1 is a great editor and is completely honest in his responses. I simply feel he'd benefit greatly from more work in administrative areas (AfD is but one example) in order for him to gain a better understand of key Wikipedia policies. I wish him the best, but believe we should hold off for now. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  13. Oppose I'm sure AlanM1 is a good editor, but good editors don't always make good admins. I would suggest come back in 6 months or so after doing some good work in admins areas - AfD, etc. Maybe a spell with Huggle to see what real vandalism goes on?, maybe one of the nominators might care to mentor him towards the next RfA? Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: A few of his answers concern me. Q7: Maybe it's just my interpretation of it, but his answer to Q7 makes it sound like he had no idea Template editor existed. Since admins (regardless of whether they choose to do so) have the power to work in WP:RFPERM, he should definitely be familiar with, at the very least, the existence of each userright. Q10: I could understand a lack of familiarity with some DSs, but for something as obviously controversial as abortion, it's hard to see how that wouldn't be something to consider. The fact that the question named a specific article that was under DSs was not an attempt to play any trick on him, it was a scenario that he could realistically run into in his adminship. The fact that he didn't "do his homework" on that example suggests that he would do exactly the same if/when he becomes an admin. Q11: Per Lord Roem, his unwillingness to answer makes it difficult to see if he has enough/any knowledge of what notability is. His first answer sounds like a claim that, since he doesn't plan to work in that area, he shouldn't have to understand notability (which goes against "candidates...should respect and understand [Wikipedia's] policies"). Great editor? Looks like it. Great admin? Just not yet.—LucasThoms 00:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Re Q7. For the record, you're wrong. I duly noted the broadcast message about the discussion of the right (I may have even participated in it). I simply had not run into a significant need for it, only needing to request changes to a couple (few?) protected templates, and being satisfied with the procedure for doing so.

    Further, I don't think it's reasonable to think that anyone but WM developers know well which rights exist and what they do. That's why there's documentation, starting with Special:ListGroupRights. Create a test based on the contents of that page and I doubt many admins would get a passing grade.

    Re Q10. I made the mistake of giving a quick opinion, based solely on the information in this page, without regard for which article it was about, just as LR expected I would. Like I said, I shouldn't have answered, and I wouldn't have worked on the case in reality. I don't know why I have to keep repeating that. Whatever happened to AGF? It seems like more credit is given to people that are the subject of ANIs, who have actually committed acts of wrongdoing, when they say they will act subject to certain constraints, than I get, having clearly stated my intentions up front. I have no intention of working on AfD. Should I want or have (somehow) to, I will study the process and precedents, and apply the same intelligence and ability that I use for everything else. What about anything I've said makes this so hard to believe?

  15. Oppose; sorry, but the answers to Q9 and Q10 makes me move here. I believe that admins should, if the situation comes, be able to deal with tough situations instead of just avoiding them. For example, I may not want to do anything if I come across an edit war on a contentious article, but if I do, I should be able to deal with it. This doesn't mean I don't think that you aren't a good editor; far from it, in fact, but rather that I don't think adminship is the right thing at this time. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think you have it backwards, one of the best parts of the way things work on Wikipedia is that admins only need to get involved when they feel they can do so competently. The most valuable thing a new admin can learn is that they personally don't need to solve every problem they come across. That doesn't mean there isn't some breadth of experience expected, but somewhat specialized admins is unavoidable. Monty845 01:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think that specialized admin are fine, but they still need to demonstrate a familiarity with a variety of the duties and processes here. Not all, but some, including some familiarity with deletion (Prod, CSD or AFD), dispute resolution and general policy as sometimes a problem is thrust upon an admin, and if you aren't wanting to handle it, you still need to know where to file it to get other admin to review. Simply ignoring it is seldom the best answer. Dennis Brown |  | WER 02:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  16. Oppose – I initially said I wouldn't oppose, but the last few answers above have made me more concerned. Like StringTheory11, I don't think an administrator should deliberately ignore a situation. Admins should know how to handle these situations. United States Man (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    @StringTheory11, United States Man: I'm sorry you felt the need to move your vote. Can you explain please under what circumstances I would be compelled to act in a situation in which I did not feel competent (like AfD)? What situation could exist in which I could not expect one of my 1400 brethren to either advise or perform the task themselves? Monty845's comment above is exactly in line with my understanding.

    @Dennis Brown, Ronhjones: In my answers above, I have demonstrated familiarity with many different aspects of admin work. Why is nobody looking at that work? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

    To me, it's not the fact that someone else could eventually do it, but the fact that you would shy away from it and pass it by. We need admins who are not afraid to handle tough situations. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  17. Oppose-- but that means oppose for now. More experience is needed in some of the basic admin areas, and I hope the candidate will persevere. No admin can avoid dealing with edit warring and deletion. And a candidate for admin should at least be suspicious that Abortion is likely to be one of the subjects under special sanctions--and certainly should check on such things when up at RfA before answering. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
At least for now. The lack of AfD participation is concerning, and less than 8,000 edits in six years is not too active (but this is still plenty and will not garner an oppose from me). United States Man (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to see evidence of participation in admin related areas. Things like AfD and other discussions that an admin eventually closes allow me to better judge the users understanding of policy. If such examples are presented I will reconsider my position. Chillum 21:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. I'm not concerned about a lack of participation specifically in AfD, but as others have stated, I would like to examine more thoroughly the areas of custodial maintenance AlanM1 has participated in to gain and understanding of their judgement and how they would handle the tools. Mkdwtalk 21:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  2. As stated above, there needs to be participation in AfD for my !vote and a higher activity level would do well. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  3. For now - I'm not agreeing with most of the opposing nor most of the supporting votes here. Seems like a really nice guy, but I'm not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling about this one, and the lack of AFD is worrisome. The last candidate had similar issues and agreed to mentoring. The problem is that we have no way to tell how the candidate looks at deletions, or that he understands our policies on them at all. Dennis Brown |  | WER 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  4. Wavering. Not enough AfD experience or solid content contributions in terms of article creation/improvement (AFAICS editor's contributions in this area are all stubs/lists). The former is key, IMHO, to demonstrate the necessary understanding of policy required for the tools and the latter would be a bonus. If I could see some examples of work on good/featured articles or a couple of DYKs that might convince me otherwise.  Philg88 talk 16:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    I haven't kept track of which articles I've contributed to were FA/GA at that or some other time. I do remember having worked on getting Operation Frequent Wind up to GA. My contribs do include a lot of article copy-editing/citing/maint-tagging, though often to articles that are perhaps less "popular", and not the focus of the FA/GA/DYK tracks. Also, list articles are not always trivial. List of human stampedes in Hindu temples, for example, took a fair amount of work to clean up and cite. I've also done a lot of work on List of colors: A–F etc., and have a rework of them in progress. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    X's Tool is useful for showing your contributions if you are unsure which articles you have worked on: [21], and he has one for showing who did what on individual articles, so you can see your involvement in Operation Frequent Wind: [22]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  5. For now - Per others above. Faizan 19:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  6. Neutral I'm baffled by the nomination statement, but I can easily look beyond that. A calm, level-headed candidate, it seems, but I'm not ready to show support without more significant contributions presented. I'm not looking for a crafted masterpiece of an article, but just something to show dedication and effort. I must say, however, that I do not think it's fair to consider two years of active editing as insufficient, and the registration date is absolutely irrelevant. As long as the candidate can clearly show they can be trusted with the tools, and adapt to a changing environment, that's all that matters. That can be done in less than a year, in my opinion. Same applies with the edit count. Quality over quantity. — MusikAnimal talk 22:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

About RfB

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

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 change usernames for most users and can 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 USER ~~~~}} 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.

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