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.
Requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
Useful pages
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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.

Contents

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 and files.

About RfA and its process

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. 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 or coaching 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.
Nominating
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
Many candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Discussion and decision
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. 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.
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 3 months, but many editors prefer to wait several months before reapplying.
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, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer.
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, and 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. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
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.
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. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and they are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 12:10:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Dipankan001

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/19/8); Scheduled to end 15:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Dipankan001 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, I am Dipankan; editing under the username Dipankan001 for nearly 9 months. I participate in a wide variety of topics; and am much too familiar with the regular processes of Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia on 15th of August 2011 with the intention to share knowledge with others. And yes, this worked. I’m very happy and feel proud to be a Wikipedian. As a Wikipedia editor I have always tried to remain calm and cool in discussions which gets hot. My main focus after I become an admin will be still in a variety of places; doing the admin work then, alongside general day-to-day works. Previously I had made some mistakes; and I tried to correct them. I am also running a WikiProject, WikiProject IPL. I am always open to be contacted. My hard works had been well recognized by number of editors. If this RFA fails I will take the positive out of it and will work more on the issues pointed out here. Thanks, Dipankan (Have a chat?) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Dipankan (Have a chat?) 14:42, 17 May 2012 (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 am interested in a variety of topics. As a admin; I would like to take part in requests for undeletion, requests for permissions, AIV, UAA, etc. These are the main places where I mostly hang around; and I have a lot of experience in these areas; so there are very less chances of going wrong.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: So far, vandalism reversion is what I think is my best contribution. I have been using STiki lately to fight vandalism, and have reverted tons of vandalism edits using manual rollback. As such; I became a instructor at CVU. Apart from that; I also write articles and short stubs. I have about 28-29 articles created now. I have 31% of my contributions to article namespace. Fixing references; expanding is also what I like.
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: As much as I remember; I have not been in any serious editing disputes till now. What I remember is; in the article Doritos; a IP had been making section blanks; and I was just not been able to revert it with the slow Twinkle. I got help from User:Vrenator, with whom I reported to AIV and got the IP blocked. I had faced Trolls, and IP's which made personal attacks against me. In future I will strictly bear the rule of WP:3RR, and if the user violates; I will ask him to stop. If the user does not understand; I will report it to administrators to look over the issue.
Additional question from Monty845
4. In January you reverted this edit as vandalism [1], if you were to come across that edit today, what would you do the same, and what would you do differently?
A: Some IP's says his "former" wife; some say "ex"wife and so on. What's curious is that they did not provide a reliable source. I'd still revert that; believing it to be a hoax. At least some references should be given when editing a questionable sentence.
Followup question from Monty845 What makes that edit rise to the level of vandalism as opposed to a non-vandal edit that can be reverted per WP:BLP?
As of January 2012; I had been using the old version of STiki, which did not contain any other options except Vandalism and Pass and Innocent. I don't know why; the comment panel below could not be modified; it was locked up. (As of April's version the problem has been solved). If the IP contacted me, I'd politely reply to him and say that it needs a reliable source to prove that the sentence is real and just not a hoax.
Additional question from RegentsPark
5. On reviewing your editing history, I came across this curious incident of a dog. Though the incident is recent, I'm not going to hold it against you but could you explain what you have learned from that incident?
A: I've quite learned a lot of things. You know; every day; we learn something or the other. I've learnt how to judge to close a AFD more wisely. Well sometimes mistakes do occur. I have my mistakes; and you also have some or the other mistakes, right? The most important thing I learnt from that is I should be more careful while closing discussions. Number of Votes never matter. What matters is the text of the article. If it is like a hoax and maximum votes say Speedy Keep, I'd still delete that.(After a long research to prove it's a hoax, definitely. )
Additional questions from Smsarmad
6. What are your best contributions in article space?
A: As of now; I am not creating any GA's or FA's. I create start class articles and stubs. From what I remember one of my finest articles created is Criminal (Ra.One song), with the help of User:Meryam90 and many others. I, recently, have been creating some lists of international centuries by international players, and created about 5 of them. They have more than 25 international centuries, enough to make a stand-alone list.
7. While closing deletion discussions (XfDs), what do you think is more important: opinion of the editors who commented at the discussion or your own research about the subject?
A: According to me both are important; and are linked to each other. Votes may be from genuine editors; as well as socks of the user who created the article. Socks of the user will vote Keep or Speedy Keep many times. The user closing the discussion; if does not check what the article is and closes with the reason keep, will be making a mistake. So; as I said; the vote should be based on a good reason why to delete or why to keep. After that; always comes a bit of research about the topic to see if it is notable.
7(a). When you are done researching on the subject of a deletion discussion and you find out that you strongly disagree with the majority of the Keep !voters (Suppose there are 4 Keep !votes and 1 Delete (nominator's) !vote and all are by genuine editors with strong arguements). How will you close the discussion?
A:
Additional question from Rcsprinter123
8. If you discovered you had been wrongly blocked, and could prove it, would you remove the block on yourself first or submit the proof properly on your user talk page? How would you respond to the block?
A: I'd never remove the block from myself; even if it was a block wrongly placed on me. First of all, I'd gather enough proof to prove that block has been wrongly placed on me. Then I'd check what is the reason for me. After that I'd place unblock template with a reason, containing the proof that I was wrongly blocked. I'm sure that way I would be unblocked.
Additional question from Mark Arsten
9. Under which circumstances should a current event that is receiving coverage from numerous media outlets have an article on Wikipedia? In the future, how will you evaluate current events to determine if they merit an article?
A: I'm pretty strict with events notability. As the inclusion criteria says, the event should be of national or international impact. It must have a number of news or reliable sources speaking clearly of it. It must have significant coverage and third party sources. While these are important, people must remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Additional question from User:OrenBochman
9. Would you consider coaching users with less experience than yourself?
A:

I don't know who left me this question; as I removed the <-- and --> I found this question. Sadly; it is going to show Additional questions from Dipankan001. Lets answer this: Yes, I'm always ready to help and guide other users, and I'm much familiar with this process, I have myself been a instructor at CVU; where I coach users about vandalism, and so anytime, any moment contact me, and I'm ready.

Additional question from Carrite
10. Have you ever used another screen name to edit at Wikipedia? If so, what name or names were these?
A: I have only this account; Dipankan001. I had never edited from any IP's before I joined Wikipedia. So edits by me are recorded in only this account though which I'm editing.
Additional questions from TheSpecialUser
11. In what case will you undelete? 3 choices; an article deleted via, a CSD, a AfD and a PROD? And why?
A: According to my experience, my mind says that I should not restore a CSD unless i) It was mistakenly deleted, ii) Clearly not eligible for CSD or other Deletion types. AFD- I'd ask the user to contact the admin who closed the deletion debate. That's what is simple help. And for PROD- if it was not objected; I'd ask the reason why the user wants to get it back. If no response, no undeletion, too.
12. What kind of rational will you consider as a valid one for unblocking someone (IP or editor)?
A: First I'll consider: Thorough checking of all edits to see if it is vandalism, or Personal attacks or any legal threats. If there is so, I'd like to see the style that the user talks upon after the block has been placed. If he is not civil, chances are that he'll take revenge and vandalize the project more. If he becomes civil, is willing to co-operate, and make good edits, I'll sort of unblock him, and watch on his contribs. That's a smart way to watch on users.

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support per WP:NOTNOTNOW, pending further investigation. 28bytes (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support to cancel out some of the ridiculous opposes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support This is actually one of the better RFAs lately (the best if you consider the not a chance ones). One of the opposes said it's not a race to adminship. I'd like to remind all the opposers that it's not a race to oppose either. Those are some of the cheapest reasons I've seen. This editor has over 4500 edits; 3000 of them are manual edits. They have well over 6 months experience, experience in AIV and RFPP (both with backlogs lately) and they have no blocks. 100% support adminship and I implore the opposers to reconsider or strengthen their rationale. Who cares when an editor review happened? It's a voluntary process; nothing like an RFC/U. 40-50 article creations knocks me out of the running as well (maybe I should give up my bit). Then the 3rd oppose invokes the SNOWball clause? Obvious not the case here given the supporters.--v/r - TP 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. per Reaper Eternal. This new "race to oppose" makes me sick. I should return my mop I guess if I am to be judged by some of your standards.......Now for the reason we are here give the man a mop. Xe has created 28 articles all from under represented areas. I have been in an editorial dispute with xem and they acted very calm, cool and collect. So as fasily would say, why not?--Guerillero | My Talk 17:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support — change of heart. WP:NOTNOTNOW. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support per unrealistic standards. Adminship is "no big deal".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. Weak support. Generally good contributions. Enough experience in admin-related areas. Ideally, I would like to see more content creation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support You have enough experience on Wikipedia to qualify to be an administrator. You have very good contributions and you have rollback rights, which is an Administrative-Related area. Good Luck! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    In what way is rollback an administrative-related area? Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support We need to lower our standards. This user appears trustworthy and knowledgeable in the areas he wants to work in. He may be inexperienced in some areas but he can learn from his mistakes and other admins can help him. We need to restore our mentality that adminship is no big deal.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  10. Stong Suppot This is my first participation in and RFa debate. Rather than go rehash many arguments raised below I would like to expand this discussion and reach a broader consensus by considering more pragmatic aspect rather than repeat the same argument which are makin the RFA look more like a vote than a dicussion - the worst kind of message this body can send to the community.
    1. Our community would prosper by having more hands on the mop.
    2. This is the era of editor decline, less editors than ever demonstrate willingness to learn to use the wiki and fewer young men and women show the will to join the ranks of Administrators. The main stumbling blocks are a massive body of policy that can be used to prove both side of most arguments. As such an editor with the experience demonstrated here should count for more than it did two or three years ago - when many of you first took up the mop
    3. There is a small number of active admins only about 300 - they must act fast and decisively and as such their decisions appear high-handed on the mop.
    4. There were times when RfA was full of good prospects. Now as often as not it is empty of new volunteers to take up the mop, and yet Wikipida's success is its own undoing - more vandals, more spammers and even the sign post is full of successful consultant directing armies of paid editors to subvert our open society to their commercial concerns and fill Wikipedia to the brim with infomercials masquerading as Good articles. The work of admins is forever increasing and the labour crunch demands more hands at the mop.
    5. Another advantage this editor has is that he is new - he can still sympathise and understand a newcomer better than some of the more senior admins who have become say indifferent to repeaded application of a trout. His record shows great energy - one that would certainly benefit Wikipedia if provided with responsibilities and with a mop
    6. He has taken a teaching position - indicative of outstanding good will as well as a mind conductive to coaching future users and admins when he will gain sufficient experience and provide yet more hands on the mop
    7. The nay sayers cite lack of experience - he is not Jimbo 2.0 but noone he is either and this in itself is not a a valid point. A good closer would not wipe these away with his mop.
    8. Getting access to the tools is like getting a driving license - it means a person has demonstrated a minimal level of competency and sufficient reponsiblity to be trusted to perform the rest of a life long learning process without endangering others. I think his record shows more than both require at the mop.
    9. To wrap up I'd like point out that the RFA process has become so predictable that Moira Bruke and Robert Kraurt claim in the papper titled "Mopping Up" that their model of RfA can be computed on the fly by accounting for just 8 parameters.
      • Strong edit history 2611 with a standard diviation of 3804
      • Months since first edit 9.8 with a standard diviation of 8
      • Policy edits 474 with a standard diviation of 755
      • Siding with Consensus at RFA 41% with SD of 99%
      • Edit history 80% of the time with Sd of 20%
    to name a few factors - I hope this discussion starts a trend that will cause these researcher to throw away their models. The RFA should start considering applicant on merit, potential and be less predictable by introducing greater diversity on the mop BO; talk 23:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support per Cyberpower. We really need to lower our standards as he is trustworthy enough. Always wants to do the right thing. 1st Oppose now is a SNOWBALL, which is not at all the case here. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 05:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  12. Support Good Contributions and as per Cyberpower StrikeEagle ✈ 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support He has been one of my best wiki-friends. One of his best things are that he learn from his mistakes. He is enthusiastic and I can say that he will not use the admin tools indiscriminately. Although Adminship is not a big deal, it requires great deal of maturity and experience, and Dipankan has it. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    I've not seen any evidence that Dipankan001 learns from his mistakes. His nomination of Kolkata Knight Riders for GA was speedily failed on 20 April. He nominated 2011 Cricket World Cup for GA on 21 March but after the KKR nomination failed he did nothing to the World Cup article, indicating he took nothing from the review. It was short, but "It hass too many paragraphs without inline citations" is clear enough and referencing was a problem in the World Cup article. Nev1 (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Unfortunate to see you point out only that.Do you have any other reasons to oppose? Regards StrikeEagle ✈ 10:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    I think a demonstrable failure to learn from the experience is enough, but as it happens if you take a look at my oppose rationale, I also have concerns about the editor's understanding of fair-use. The minimal engagement surrounding the KKR nomination (not discussing article issues on the talk page) and the copyright issues is also concerning as administrators are expected to communicate. Nev1 (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Agree with you......I don't find any other serious concerns apart from this two though I feel he should have had more edits Thanks StrikeEagle ✈ 10:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    There are more than two issues: problem with understanding fair-use (used a non-free image as decoration on several pages); failure to communicate effectively (not discussing fair-use image issues), failure to learn from experience (doing nothing to improve World Cup article after other GAN failed), and the foolhardy nomination of two articles clearly not ready for GA and which he hadn't even edited previously (demonstrating poor judgement). Nev1 (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Never-mind....I included those and counted only GA Nominations and Fair-Use policies... StrikeEagle ✈ 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  14. Weak support per Axl. This user has fine contributions, however a little more content creation would be ideal. -- Luke (Talk) 11:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose; WP:NOTNOW. Also, I would expect around 7000 edits for a RFA candidate and more article creations. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Your RFA guidelines say much less than that. Check out, check out :-) Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
How many articles are you looking for? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Around 40-50. I will update guidelines. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Tomtomn00, your guidelines are too strict. Mst admins out there don't even meet your guidelines and look at the good work they do.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 15:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. The best content writers aren't even the ones you want as admins, because then the writing stops. IMO you want people with enough experience with articles to know what should and shouldn't be going on in the namespace, and then a history of good maintenance in one or more areas such as vandalism fighting, mediation, files, templates, abuse filters, etc. (the places where admin tools come in handy). Sven Manguard Wha? 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
What a convenient fiction. What about page moves? Protection? Malleus Fatuorum 19:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - A good editor, though I have to oppose. I see that you participate a lot in talk page discussions, while there is nothing wrong in this, most of them are either of IPL drive or something else which is not enough constructive (34% is way too much of it). Only 1250 edits in article space which constitutes to 31 % is good, but only 32, 25 and 15 as the most edited articles respectively show a lack of content creation. This doesn't affect your work as an admin, but remember why we all are here in the end (to build and improve the encyclopedia). I'd have loved to support if little more content creation along with more experience would have been shown. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 15:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC) We really have to lower the standards a little
I'd like you perhaps to consider your own advice and not disqualify someone on a a factor which you admit will not actualy affect his work of an admin.BO; talk 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  1. Snowball Oppose WP:NotNow.--Deathlaser :  Chat  15:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Please see this also: Wikipedia:NOTNOTNOW. They also show good reverts, accurate closer of AfDs and good file moves. Also has 4400+ edits and also participate in various discussions. So isn't a NOTNOW too harsh. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 16:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Still not enough.It'd be much better if we speedy closed this one.--Deathlaser :  Chat  16:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    "Still not enough." - of what? edits? NAC? GAs? FAs? DYKs? Months of activity? mabdul 12:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Looks to have strong work against vandals, but not enough other activity to justify tools at this time. Sorry.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Can you please make it clear? I work in many areas, not just reverting vandalism. File moving is also what I do. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    From what I saw, the majority of work was in anti-vandalism. Don't get me wrong...that's a very good activity. But I am one who does prefer to see some article creation activity. That happens to be my personal preference, though. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Unfortunate oppose This editor is a good editor but I would like to see more backstage work too.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks Cyberpower. What's Backstage work? Wiki-Gnoming?
  3. Simply not enough time between Editor Review and RfA, it's not a race. Nick (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Just for a short note; My editor review was opened on early December 2011. Isn't that a bit old? It has simply not yet been archived. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Some of the opposes were ridiculous when it was first posted, but Dipankan conduct in this RFA is literally certifying these concerns, maybe later. Secret account 17:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    If I were Dipankan001, I'd be frustrated too at these opposes. If you want to slam him for conduct, at least you've got a better reason than the other six above. But he hasn't been uncivil or rude and I think he's taking the BS above quite nicely. If it were me, I'd outright tell the above that I'll see them at their own RFAs and be just as inane and ridiculous in my opposes as well. I think you should wait to see how he responds to real opposes before actually opposing over his behavior.--v/r - TP 17:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    These silly comments will count against me unless one strikes them through, though I won't strike it, I agree with what TParis said. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Oppose WP:NOTNOTNOW certainly applies here, so we wouldn't want to close this discussion before it gets heated. The link I provided, which was a terrible non-admin closure is recent enough that I don't believe the user is ready. He may have learned from the experience, but after a mistake like that, I don't believe that the editor has the knowledge of policy necessary. If this was even two months afterwards, I could see a possibility, but there is no way that he became ready for the mop in the past 17 days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, I am not opposing per WP:NOTNOTNOW, I am saying the editor understands what adminship is so there should not be a WP:NOTNOW closure. Everything following that is my oppose rationale. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    To say that was only a simple mistake which provided me a great learning experience. I was very careful about closing discussions after that. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. A keen, cheerful, polite, and enthusiastic editor but a clear case of WP:NOTNOTNOW and needs some way to go before meeting my criteria. Recent blunders such as this also demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the scope of admin work.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    That was just declining a request. What was the wrong in it? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. Oppose The candidate has performed non-admin closures of roughly a dozen AfD's, and voted in about 25 more. I interpret the non-admin closures as a sign that the candidate might potentially be interested in closing AfD's should the RfA succeed, even though that was not part of the answer to Q1. I'm opposing because the candidate has far too little experience at AfD to be closing them as an admin (perhaps even as a non-admin). He seems to be a bit low on experience overall, and could benefit from participating in these areas more. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 18:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Actually I'm not interested in deletion work. Unblocking; blocking; RFPP and all those areas. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Although you registered in August last year you've really only been active since October, seven months ago. And you only have 32 edits to the article you've contributed most to, The Telegraph in Schools, which is still in a frankly dreadful state. It is against all natural justice to promote someone with no real experience of content creation to be judge and jury of those who do. Every editor fights vandals every day, but they don't expect a medal for it, which is what this application seems to be to me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Is creating stubs a bad thing? If I edit many articles randomly, is it considered negative? I may not have been focused on one article; I'm focused on many articles. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Well, creating poors stubs isn't a good thing. And I see no evidence that you've focused on many articles at all. Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    So you say stub creation is not encouraged right? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Try reading what I said again. Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    I've long ago understood your what you wanted to know. I'm telling I also edit articles not by me. The most latest example is to Uno (card game) where I fixed some refs. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    I don't understand what "I've long ago understood your what you wanted to know" means, but if you knew anything at all about RfA you'd know that you're doing yourself no favours by responding to every oppose vote. Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Created userbox stating "This user destroys vandals with an AK-47 rifle". Vandalism is unfortunate, but the idea of murdering vandals is not something that should even be joked about. Keepscases (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    While the whole military/vandal fighting analogy thing may not be a good idea, I think most users who use those boxes mean only they will apply wikipedia policies to fight against, and defeat vandals. I don't think its joking about actually killing anyone. Monty845 20:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  10. Very Weak Oppose While I'd really like to support your RfA, recent issues (such as the Obama deletion) just don't sit well with me. I do, however, wish you the best of luck. Cheers, C(u)w(t)C(c) 21:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. After checking your contributions, I am left with the feeling that you have been trying to tick all the right boxes to be granted the mop, which has sometimes led you to get involved, through overeagerness, in situations where your intervention was actually quite inappropriate (the AfD closure referenced in question #6 springs to mind). This, coupled with your very limited content creation experience forces me to oppose your candidacy. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    I never know what very little content creation means? I have so far created 28 articles, which I consider sufficient. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    At the very best, by your own admission, you've created 28 stubs. And judging from the few I've looked at they're pretty poor stubs at that. Why not prove me wrong by improving one of your stubs to become a proper article? Malleus Fatuorum 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - I would like to see more experience with AfD and a few other areas. Overall I think you'll make a fine admin some day, but I think this is a WP:NOTNOW case. Just gain a little more experience and try again in 6 months. Best regards, P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Original concerns are merged with some discomfort about candidate's answer to question #5. Seems very surface-level, obvious, not really demonstrating to me a true learning experience that changed the methods and mindset of the editor. With that in mind, which is I think a substantive basis, I will oppose. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  14. Reluctant oppose. The candidate will most likely prove a good admin in a few months. Keepscases, ConinueWithCaution and Kudpung raise valid concerns which I can't overlook. Keep up the good work and don't be discouraged by the RfA - rather, think of it as a learning experience. Majoreditor (talk) 04:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  15. Oppose based on Malleus' content contribution comment, Ryan Vesey's AfD close comment (which was only a few weeks ago), and while I don't have firm standards of time and edits for supporting an RfA, if I did they would be more than 9 months and 4,300 edits.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  16. Weak oppose. A fine and enthusiastic editor but still has a long way to go. Recent edits such as 1 and 2 are a clear case of blunder. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  17. Oppose (moved from neutral), per badgering of opposes. Also agree with Malleus re. article space contributions. Overall, not ready for the mop, although not quite at the "not now" state. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Keep protecting Doritos, improve some articles to C/B status, and come back in 6 months.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  19. Oppose doesn't understand non-free images as demonstrated here (it was disappointing there was no reply) and doesn't understand article requirements as shown by two premature GA nominations Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup/GA1 Talk:Kolkata Knight Riders/GA1. One of the speedily failed GA nominations might be excusable, but the second suggests that Dipankan001 didn't learn. Nev1 (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I'm sure the candidate's heart is in the right place but their judgement and WP:PAG knowledge is not quite up to having access to the admin bits. Additionally, the fact they managed to add double signatures into the nom statement reflects poorly on their technical ability or represents carelessness. The closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs was sufficiently recent and shows sufficiently poor judgement to be an oppose rationale in its own right. I might be prepared to overlook that if there was nothing else, but their editing experience and inappropriate A class assessment, combined with earlier concerns I had about the candidate—when they requested rollback four times in one month and had file moved rights removed—conspire to create an impression of someone who generally lacks the judgement and experience required of an admin and is perhaps too eager to acquire hats. The badgering of oppose !votes on this page did not bode well either. These concerns notwithstanding, I would probably support the candidate 6-12 months down the line. Pol430 talk to me 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Neutral - like I said on your Editor Review, there are a lot of pluses here. The big downside (and the only reason I'm not supporting) is that there seems to be no real collaboration on either User Talk pages or in the Talk: namespace. Administrators need to be able to communicate and work well with others. I'm not saying that you can't, just that there's no record of you doing so. The lack of "hard" Content work (only 6 Articles that you've touched more than 10 times), as well, is a minus, but not a damning one. Achowat (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Well I have indeed helped a lot of users in the past; and continue to do so. There are many admins here on this project with less content work, focusing on just other namespaces. I'm on wide topics. Main namespace; Template namespace; File namespace; what not? Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning oppose, for now. Don't think candidate is ready, but need more time for further investigation before I commit. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. I appreciate your confidence. You are always in a hurry, I would suggest you to discuss about this with couple of senior editors/admins who you are familiar with before you take such steps. All the best :-) -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 16:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    I am never in a hurry Ansumang. I had been planning for my RFA from a few days before. Whatever; your comment matters for me, though. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 16:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Neutral-Just really nothing to sway me one way or the other on this one. Has some decent article work, and some good article work. However, the copyright notices on your talk page make me lean towards oppose though.SKATER Is Back 17:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. NOTNOTNOW certainly applies, so some of the opposers should feel ashamed of themselves for being needlessly dismissive. I'd be supporting, probably, if not for the "Wikipedia experience Survey" mess, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and not just because you used me as an example without asking. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Neutral I never planned a thing for my RfA - it just seem to happen... Planning for a few days? Does sound a little like a snap decision. One problem with RfA is that a lot of good potential editors/admins are lost by ambitiously coming to it too soon, and then taking umbrage at the comments. I've not had a chance to look through the contribs etc yet (I'm away and with an erratic connection), but in case this finishes quickly, I'd say to the candidate "Don't be down-hearted. Most seem to be saying TOO SOON. Keep on editing - get more experience - study the policies - etc etc." I'll look further if things keep going, but if it doesn't, talk with people and don't retire in despair. They're not saying you're incompetent and not fit to be here. They're saying keep going and learn a bit more. Peridon (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    Neutral I'm keeping my vote neutral as the candidate did not answer some questions yet. -- Luke (Talk) 01:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Then why not wait until he has and vote then? Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    I've answered the questions. Dude, I'm not a bot. I live in India and at that time I went to sleep; it was late night there whereas you'd be having a nice afternoon probably. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Neutral First of all, WP:NOTNOTNOW applies here. And then the discussions around.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. Neutral: -- Tinu Cherian - 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. Neutral With little contribution to article space (and in general also) and this much experience I am not completely sure about the understanding of the policies and judgement skills of the editor required for the tools. Some other editors have also shown concern about the few contributions in article space, so I must make clear that why this issue concerns me is that when you don't make much contributions to article space you cannot completely understand some important policies and guidelines. Another issue is CSD tagging which I find to be only about 80% correct which again makes me think about the lack of understanding about CSD. While I don't support Dipankan001, I also don't want to discourage him/her by opposing. I wish you good luck. --SMS Talk 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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 change the user name of 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 frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

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


Current nominations for bureaucratship

Jc37

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (9/0/0); Scheduled to end 08:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Jc37 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) – Hi all. I'm submitting this RfB to the community because I'd like to help. It's what I like to do here at Wikipedia. I don't have any FAs (or rather: I haven't successfully sent any articles through the FA process AFAIK), but that's not really been my focus. I tend to enjoy more, creating stubs, or helping a stub on its way, or even more, organising an existing page so that its flow is better, and it's clearer and easier to read. (Incidentally, I dislike that this is supposed to be one big block of text : ) - I suppose I like the editor-ing part of editing. I enjoy cleaning up articles, and in particular, lists and categories. I suppose that all of these might be pretty much considered mostly thankless tasks, but we each contribute to Wikipedia in our own way : ) - As for non-content/article-space, I've been present for/contributed to many policy/process discussions over the years, helping write/re-write many policy/guideline/essay pages. I also like to help out new (and not-so-new) editors. In the past, I've also been a "go-to person" to look over proposed policy/guidelines, particular edits, 3PO etc. I was entrusted with the tools and responsibilities of adminship in 2006. I tend to be most active at CfD, but as I like to help out, I float all over. For example, the other day I noticed that there was a backlog at RfPP, so I cleared most of the page. As you may notice if you look over my contribs, I have had some "gaps" in editing in the past due to various real life issues/concerns (at one point my ancient computer gave up the ghost in the machine : ) - Anyway, to all who take the time to "look me over", thanks for your time : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: C'est moi : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
A: - I've read a LOT of RfA discussions. And I've seen a fair number of contentious closures. RfA (like most of the processes which grant an individual user-rights and related responsibilities) is pretty much a hybrid between voting and consensus. So with that in mind, while there really is no "magic" number, anything better than 3/4 (75%) is "usually" a successful candidacy, with the region roughly between 2/3 and 3/4 being within discretion. That said, in preparing for this nom, I read over quite a few past successful RfBs, and find that each seems to have their own personal preference on the specifics of the numbers. I seem to remember being in some RfC discussion long (long long) past where many sitting bureaucrats were polled on this, and there was a general agreement on where the "fuzzy middle" of the numbers should lie, but it all pretty much resolved as: it depends on the stuation, we'd rather trust the bureaucrats to be conscientious in their discretion than to affix arbitrary benchmarks in policy - which is part of why there is currently still no mandated numeric amount. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
A: Depends on the situation. "Contentious" covers a lot of ground. In some cases, a 3PO might be a good idea, in others, it may not be necessary. As for "criticised", an RfA often brings together those who disagree, and so there are those who will disagree with (criticise) a closure. Such is life on Wikipedia. The response to that is I believe the same as expected of any closer. Be ready to explain any close. Don't close if you're unsure of the accuracy/appropriateness of the closure. And so on. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
A: Because I do? lol. But more seriously, I'm a firm believer in the Consensus model, and in Wikiquette. (See the top of my talk page for some links/examples.) Incidentally, I considered linking the various policy/process pages which related to my statements in my nomination and these questions, but as I did, I realised I could link nearly everything. And since I felt/feel that most commenting here would hopefully be at least somewhat well-versed in such pages, I decided to spare everyone the wall-o-blue : ) - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky caldron

4. Can you explain why (a) you think that the setting on an edit count limit on WP:RFA would be beneficial, (b) your rationale for imposing such an automated limit and (c) in what circumstances you would pass an RFA candidate with 400 edits? See [2]
A: - Well, I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there should be a "set" limit. But I can see the benefits being similar to NOTNOW. Though, thinking about it, I think setting such a limit might be less seemingly confrontational to a newbie than telling them after-the-fact "not now" - being proactive, rather than reactive. As for why 400, I explained in that link why I picked that number. Though, to be sure, numeric edit counting is quite open to gaming, and might need to be locked down some way, like saying that userspace and talk space edits, as well as (semi-)automated edits shouldn't count towards that number. I suppose the idea/intent is to try to come up with a way to assign a benchmark for "minimum experience". And I think even if we set one, IAR, as always should be potentially applicable under certain case-by-case bases. The short answer I suppose is: I'm not convinced one way or other, but I'd be interested in what the rest of the community thinks. If you'd like, I would be happy to discuss this with you and see where you and I may agree and disagree : ) - jc37 09:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Additional question from TheSpecialUser
5. What according to you are the minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA and under which circumstances or how much % consensus (minimum) will you promote an editor?
A: As a closer? AFAIK, according to policy, other than being a registered Wikipedian (having an account), there are currently no minimum requirements for an editor to pass an RfA. That said, as I noted above (under question 1), we traditionally have rough numeric benchmarks we look toward as a guide. I think I explained this in question 1. However, if there is something you would like me to clarify, I would be happy to do so. (I feel like I'm missing something in your question.) - jc37 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Nothing much but, for e.g., there are 2 editors (a and b). A gets 76% S% votes in their rfa while B gets 73% S% votes, so who will be promoted by you, (both? only A? only B? none?) and why? →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 10:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it would depend on the substantive discussion in the RfA. Sorry, I don't mean to say (again) "it depends", but it kinda does. But ok, for the sake of whatever, let's pretend that all supports and all opposes are merely "support" and "oppose", then, by the numbers alone, I think I would probably promote both. (Though in that very unlikely case, I would still probably do some due diligence and check their contribs myself, in part to see whether I would feel comfortable being the closer.) Does that better answer? (I know, I've always been terrible with answering hypotheticals : ) - jc37 10:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


General comments

  • Note: For the sake of transparency, there are roughly a half dozen Wikipedians who I have discussed adminship and/or bureaucratship with in the past. I intend to drop each of them a friendly notice linking to this page. If anyone wishes to oppose due to this, they are of course welcome to. But I think it's merely the polite thing to do. - jc37 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    Dropped a note with the three who co-nommed me for adminship, and 3 bureaucrats with whom I've discussed such things in the recent (and distant) past. - jc37 09:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussion


Support
  1. Support I see that Jc37 is prepared to take difficult decisions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support - A good amount of experience as an admin and has good edits. Though I see that their level of activity reduced between few months and has resumed since only 4 months, this user is trustworthy so support (no reason for me to oppose). →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 09:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support - Trustworthy candidate, successful administrator. Wrote some nice responses to the questions above. Cheers, C(u)w(t)C(c) 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support as user seems to be helpful, considerate, friendly, and I feel can be trusted with the extra tools/responsibilities. Good luck! Warning - I was super close to opposing over this typo ;) GiantSnowman 10:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support, does good work at CfD, should do equally good work at RfA. - filelakeshoe 10:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support good amount of experience.....good edits as an admin.. StrikeEagle ✈ 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support – I have been encountering jc37 for some years now, mainly at cfd, where jc37 is consistently exemplary. Oculi (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support. I know very little about what bureaucrats do, but I do understand adminship, and jc37 is masterful at that. Jc is thoughtful, friendly, humble, and willing to do the difficult and sometimes unpleasant things. That sounds like what you need as a bureaucrat.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose


Neutral


Related pages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=493159119"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export