Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 19:05:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Fayenatic london

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (14/1/2); Scheduled to end 19:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Fayenatic london (talk · contribs) – I'm nominating Fayenatic for adminship because he's got the attention to detail that I think an admin should have. If you look at User:Fayenatic_london#Portfolio you will see what I mean; articles and tasks carefully logged by type and benefit to the encyclopedia. He's level-headed, polite, and weighs the opinions of all participants before acting. I'm quite specifically nominating him because he's been willing to close some of the thornier discussions (1, 2*, 3) in the Categories for discussion arena... but since he's not an admin, he can't do that without review and assistance. I know I was brought into the admin fold because people thought I could do a better job with the tools. I am certain from my interaction with him that he will not only do a better job, but enjoy more opportunities to help than he has now. (*I particularly like this one, where he says he would have supported the minority opinion, but knows that the majority opinion was unavoidable. That's the kind of level-headedness I'm talking about.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(co-nom) I've encountered Fayenatic repeatedly the last several years. Way back when we both were "around" various fiction-related stuff - and anyone who's been in discussions there knows how contentious that environment can be. And yet, throughout it all, to my recollection Fayenatic always remained civil. And in any discussion, Fayenatic typically comes off friendly and in good humour. And the discussions are just that: discussions. (Fayenatic is one of those who actually discusses with, rather than talks past.) These days, Fayenatic can be seen just as Mike Selinker says above - helping out wherever help is needed. Fayenatic is one of those who already helps out with admin duties without already being an admin. And CFD in particular, when so many of us are in and out of regular editing (or for that matter, are commenting in the discussions) there's often a backlog. It will be nice to know that Fayenatic will be around to help (ahem) shoulder the load : ) - jc37 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yes please. It's about time I did some of the hard work instead of leaving it to others and just doing the interesting bits. – Fayenatic (talk) 16:39, 11 February 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: Initially, closing CFDs. I may occasionally do PRODs or other XfDs. It would be handy to be able to move pages and merge history myself rather than tagging db-move etc for others to do the work. Being able to see deleted pages will also be useful. When I delete anything I will be punctilious in removing backlinks; I sometimes do this already, clearing up after CfDs, PRODs and AfDs where a redlink catches my eye. I may well do some closes that require quite involved follow-up actions.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Probably the least visible ones, like this: adding citations where needed or replacing dead links using Wayback or other archives. It's a pleasure to leave an article transparently verifiable, having found it in a state where it was liable to be deleted. For a more visible example, I'm pleased at the work I did to set up the hierarchy in Category:Hebrew Bible, replacing previous parallel category hierarchies with Jewish and Christian naming.
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) Conflict: yes, occasionally. Just recently I (and another editor) misread a series of edits by an editor as appearing to pursue a POV; he did not take kindly to what he saw as an attack on his integrity, and heated discussion followed, although I think I stayed polite. Eventually I pointed out that I still did not understand why he had cited a certain policy in a particular edit summary; he explained that; and we got on with improving the article in question. I'm willing to provide details here on request, and will invite the editor to comment on this RfA anyway.
(ii) Stress: not really. I felt like using some strong words recently to a user who was wasting people's time on English WP having been banned on their native language WP, but managed to keep it civil.
4. How do you think having the administrative tools will change how you edit?
A: I hesitate to predict; I didn't think broadband would change how I use the internet, but it wasn't long until I was exploring strange new worlds! Being accountable runs very deep in me, so I am confident that I am not going to start riding roughshod over anyone. In fact I will put up that voluntary thing about giving up adminship in the event of anyone challenging my use of it. At the time of writing I intend to remain mainly a contributor rather than an administrator, but the tools will undoubtedly come in handy.


Optional questions from jc37
In order to illustrate that you have at least a passing knowledge/understanding of the policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship, please answer the following questions:
  • 5. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for:
  • 5a. ...an editor to be blocked (or unblocked)?
  • A: Blocked: Examples include persistent & ongoing intentional violation of policies after warnings, or blatant abuse such as vandalism or libel. (I have occasionally reported accounts or IP addresses at WP:AIV. I can't readily think of other situations where I might use blocking powers myself rather than refer it to experienced admin working parties.) Unblocked: perhaps if the editor made a credible plea of good faith and appeared to have learned the lesson. Conceivably, I might unblock if the blocking admin had clearly overstepped the mark, but I'd first try to see it from that admin's point of view and communicate with them.
  • 5b. ...a page to be protected (or unprotected)?
  • A: I'd use protection in a case of persistent vandalism or repeated POV editing from new accounts or IP addresses. I've occasionally made recommendations at WP:RPP in the past which have been implemented, so I seem to be thinking on the right lines. Unprotection: when there is reason to believe the problem may be over.
  • A: I'm familiar with the cases at WP:CSD which are narrowly defined and interpreted, e.g. sole author requests deletion, category empty after four days. Speedily restored: if the CSD criteria were not met or arguable so that AfD would be required; or if requested after PROD or in accordance with the criteria at WP:UND.
  • A: This applies in conjunction with WP:BOLD where a pedantic following of policies would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. The only example I can think of where I put this into practice was re-creating Category:Batman characters as a parent category only, after it was deleted at CFD leaving the sub-cats cut off from the parent. Now that I know about DRV, I would probably use that instead in such circumstances. (being accountable)
  • 6. How does one determine consensus? And how may it be determined differently on a talk page discussion, an XfD discussion, and a DRV discussion.
  • A: Weigh arguments rather than votes; WP policies may apply conclusively; precedents may help, but should not be a bar to creative improvement. A Delete outcome at XfD requires a decent level of consensus; in the absence of that, the outcome is "no consensus" which results in keep by default. The burden is reversed at DRV: no consensus results in undeletion.
  • 7. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?
  • A: Remind them both about 3RR, BRD and (if necessary) civility, to get them using the talk page constructively. I might take part in the discussion to indicate which arguments so far carry more weight and why. If in need of knowledgeable third parties, refer it to a Wikiproject or policy noticeboard.
  • 8. Why do you wish to be an administrator?
  • A: To implement CFDs that result in merge/rename/delete/listify rather than keep. To be able to see deleted pages in order to be better able to trace what to do with some redlinks. To speedily delete irredeemably worthless pages. To impose short-term blocks on IPs/accounts being used for puerile vandalism, or short-term protection if multiple IPs are being used to attack a page.


Optional questions from DGG.

  • 9 I'd appreciate it if you expanded on some of your very brief answers in Q.5, and expanded on them in such a way that we could see you own personal interpretation: the basic rules of the situations there are clear, and you repeated them correctly. But when there are disagreements, the disagreements are usually over the interpretation. I'm asking some question about which I think not everyone would agree on the right answer.
    • 9a If you correct a obviously unconstructive edit, such as adding personal opinion, and the editor reverts you, what factors will determine how you will deal with it?
      • A'
    • 9b Suppose you observe an experienced fellow admin making a blatant personal insult about a contributors intelligence, what would you do first, and how exactly would you word it? what of the various possibilities motivating the action would give you the most concern?
      • A
    • 9c What is the difference between an informative article about a product, and a promotional one that would trigger Speedy G11? If the product were in practice quite likely very notable, and quite likely otherwise, would it make a difference? Wpuld you use the standard template, or give personal advice as well, or give personal advice only--and why--and if you would say something personal, give an example of how you would word it.
      • A
    • 9d When checking deleted pages as in your answer to Q8, suppose you see a speedy deleted article deleted on the basis "this is nonsense", and you cannot see anything possibly nonsensical about it, and the deleting admin has long left Wikipedia, how would you proceed?
      • A
    • 9e If someone argues in an AfD that we should ignore WP:N because the subject is notable by common sense alone, and 8 of the 10 people there agree with that view, how would you close, and why?
      • A
    • 9f We have a guideline that occupational cross-categorization by ethnicity should generally be avoided except in special cases. Suppose in a CfD half the people assert this is one of the special cases, and half say the opposite. How do you close, and why?
      • A
Good questions, David. I'm going to have to leave them till tomorrow; busy at home for now. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Optional questions from


General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support - Looks good! Swarm X 19:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Support - good noms - good contribution history. - Youreallycan 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  3. Support I am impressed with all things indicative of this candidate. I have no concerns and the net positive effects from this user are clear in their contributions. My76Strat (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  4. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 21:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  5. Support - looks like a good candidate. PaoloNapolitano 21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  6. Support. My interactions with this user have been extremely positive. I feel confident Fayenatic will make a great admin. France3470 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  7. Support Impressive number of edits and edit count. Clean block log, great contributions. I don't see a reason yet to oppose.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  8. Support - I'm impressed by the way this user conducts themselves on Wikipedia, their understanding of policy, and their good judgement. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  9. Support Fayenatic has long demonstrated both the good judgement and the willingness to help mop up messes that is required of admins. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  10. Strong Support Great candidate! --Bmusician 02:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  11. Support I have no concerns about the candidates temperament, despite the oppose below. Why not? Pol430 talk to me 02:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  12. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  13. Support The exchange with Cusop Dingle should have attempted to de-escalate the situation rather than make it more tense. I was able to find no similar situations to this in making a quick run through this user's history. This user has consistently made excellent article contributions since 2006 and is a huge benefit to Wikipedia. I appreciate the commitment made to defuse debate in the future, and I see nothing wrong with an RfA being part of the continual learning process of improving oneself as a Wikipedian. If Fayenatic wants admin tools then I want this user to have them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  14. Support. Lord Roem (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose "It's a long time since I met another editor who was quite so adept at giving and taking offence. Thank you for your time." Please click here to see the full exchange.
If the editor was being offensive to others in the community, would your comments cool things down? If the editor excels at taking offense, are you accusing them of taking offense where none was intended? How about just saying "I think you took offense where none was intended?" Do you think your response was the helpful way for an administrator to deal with the situation?
"Look. You made a couple of mistakes. You've graciously conceded that the article has been improved, but have maintained your denial of any ulterior motive and reacted angrily to criticism of your edit summaries." I italicized the part I discuss below.
You've pointed out _they_ made mistakes. You've pointed out that _you_ were right. Was the additional accusation of "ulterior motives" necessary? What would have been the impact of assuming good faith instead of ulterior motives and saying, "Thank you for letting me know that you think my edits improved the article."
Feel free to convince me otherwise. Resolution of issue by both editors. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have replied on this RfA talk page. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. Personally I couldn't care less whether this editor is appointed an administrator. However, since I am the editor referred to in answer 3(i), and have been specifically invited to comment, I will say just this: others may wish to decide whether the exchanges on his talk page, and at an SPI, of which this and this are the last comments respectively, demonstrate the level of sound judgement required. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  2. Neutal The acceptance statement confuses the heck out of me. "It's about time I did some of the hard work instead of leaving it to others and just doing the interesting bits" ... noooo, article creation is the hard work. In the second half of the statement, why would you want to stop "doing the interesting bits"? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    Could be sarcasm but, that's not deterring me from voting support.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 14:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    Apologies for my lack of clarity. I said that in the context of helping at CFD, where I have made some closing decisions but had to then refer them to one of the admins who have offered to implement them (instructing the bot to change/remove the categories from the articles, and deleting the old categories). As I also said re Q4, I intend to carry on being mainly a contributor. There are various series of articles that I intend to create or improve by adding sources, and I'm always picking up new trails. Nevertheless I do enjoy helping out at CFD and my work there seems to be appreciated, hence my request to use the toolbox. – Fayenatic (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    Just to clarify the above comment for those not aware of the minutiae of CfD: The "interesting" part of a CFD close is reading the debate and making a decision, which Fayenatic can (for the most part) do now. But there's a page called CFD/Working that non-admins cannot edit. On that page, a lot of "non-interesting" tasks are done, such as listing categories for the bots to delete and rename. This nomination, if it passes, will give Fayenatic the tools to do the routine CFD stuff that the rest of us do. Hope that helps.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests.
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

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=476325036"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages