Page semi-protected

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.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Jakec 76 9 6 89 01:23, 31 March 2015 0 days, 8 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 16:36, 30 March 2015 (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
S O N
Buggie1112 RfA Withdrawn 17 Mar 2015 5 12 3
Koavf2 RfA Withdrawn 11 Mar 2015 15 14 3
EuroCarGT RfA No consensus 3 Mar 2015 79 41 12
Fenix down RfA Successful 23 Feb 2015 91 4 5
SarekOfVulcan4 RfA Successful 20 Feb 2015 130 30 5
Cadillac000 RfA Withdrawn 15 Feb 2015 11 18 6
MelanieN RfA Successful 21 Jan 2015 171 5 1

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 but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is 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 to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account. 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. 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 RfAs, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some 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 with uncommon rationales 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 would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain 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 percent approval pass; most of those below 70 percent 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. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
Typically, a nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats; and, in exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 16:55:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.



Jakec

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (76/9/6); Scheduled to end 01:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination

Jakec (talk · contribs) – I'm self-nominating again 15 months after my last RFA. I took the opposers' comments to heart and I've changed a lot in the time since then. I'm more mature for one thing, and in the past few months I've made almost no mistakes in the admin areas I'm planning to work in: UAA and CSD. On Wikidata, I've done decent admin actions in the past year, though I'm no longer editing actively there. Here on enwiki, I'm still doing UAA and CSD work; I've made over 400 reports to UAA and tagged numerous pages for speedy deletion. I'm also still creating articles on Pennsylvania streams and writing GAs and DYKs. As was the case last time, I've never been warned for incivility or personal attacks, and don't participate in drama often. Finally, many of the opposers at my last RFA expressed a willingness to support once I had further experience. Now I have further experience (about 10,000 edits worth), and I'm ready to request adminship again. Thank you. --Jakob (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: (self-nomination)

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: Mainly I will concentrate on blocking usernames at UAA, since that's the bulk of the admin-area work that I do presently. I have plenty of practice in dealing with promotional usernames and am aware of how to identify such names and also about the policies concerning them. Naturally, I'm also well-versed in other username policy violations, such as offensive usernames, misleading usernames, etc. CSD is the other area that I'll work on, assuming I'm promoted. I'll be concentrating mainly on A- and G-series tags, but I'll avoid handling file CSDs since I have little experience with those. I may eventually venture out into some other admin areas, but I don't expect I'll be closing AFDs.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My ongoing work on Pennsylvania streams is the main work I do here, and my best contributions are closely related to it. I currently have 18 GAs; some of the more recent ones include Kettle Creek (Pennsylvania), Solomon Creek, Mud Creek (Chillisquaque Creek), and Briar Creek (Susquehanna River). Lake Chillisquaque and Juniata County, Pennsylvania (also GAs) deserve mention as well, even though they aren't streams. I also have a Featured Picture and a Featured List: File:View of Nuremberg, Pennsylvania from the south.JPG and List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek, respectively. Then there are my 172 DYKs, of which Harveys Lake (Pennsylvania) has been the most successful, with 10,436 views.
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 tend to avoid drama and have very few edits to any of the "drama boards". However, as almost everyone has, I've been in a few conflicts and arguments during my editing. Most have been minor and virtually all have been resolved amiably. See, for instance, the minor argument here, which was resolved here. I am good at commenting on the content instead of the contributor during these arguments and have never breached 3RR; the closest I've ever come is two reverts and a partial revert, and that happened only once.
Additional question from Iaritmioawp
4. Consider the following hypothetical scenario which will test your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS. Five editors take part in a discussion. Four of them argue in favor of outcome A, one of them argues in favor of outcome B. The arguments of the advocates of outcome A are weak and are easily refuted by the one editor who argues in favor of outcome B. The one editor who argues in favor of outcome B offers numerous policy-, guideline-, and common-sense-based arguments, none of which are refuted. You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion. What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?
* This question is being discussed at RFA talk page Tito Dutta (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A: Disputes on Wikipedia are settled not by voting, but by consensus. This entails that the weight of every opinion be calculated instead of merely tallying the number of opinions on each side. Thus, if the arguments presented by the four editors in favor of A are very weak and untenable, they can be given little to no weight. On the other hand, the editor supporting B has strong opinions, they deserve a lot of weight and their single opinion is stronger than the four weak opinions on the opposing side. Thus, it would make sense to close the discussion in favor of option B. --Jakob (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from Esquivalience
5. You revert a first case of vandalism from a editor. From {{uw-vandalism}} levels 1, 2, 3, and 4im, how do you decide which one to issue for that single instance of vandalism? When would an instant block for first cases of vandalism be appropriate?
A: A level-1 warning would be appropriate for fairly innocuous testing or simple vandalism. Level 3 would be appropriate for more vicious and mean-spirited vandalism, while level 4im would only be appropriate in the most heinous cases of vandalism. A block with no warning would only be appropriate in extreme cases, such as mass-vandalism or vandalism in a pattern matching obvious sockpuppeteers, such as adding "on wheels" to page names. --Jakob (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from GraniteSand
6. First off, thanks for all the work you do. I see that you're interested in specific areas of the project, such as user names, but I don't see any concrete assertion of need or want for the broad powers of the admin tools. On balance, why should you be entrusted with wide-ranging tools when your interests and experiences are so narrow? What corpus of work can you point to which demonstrates fundamental competence in the expansive areas which admin tools will grant you discretion?
A: Thanks for the question. It's true that I'm not planning to work in all the admin areas or even most of them. However, most admins do seem to concentrate on particular tasks instead of being general, all-purpose admins. I'll grant that my planned area of work is slightly narrow, but I am not a single-purpose candidate. I do believe that the tools will allow me to help out more in places such as UAA and CSD, and since the community seems hesitant to unbundle the block or delete buttons, full adminship is the only option. As for my experience with policies and guidelines, I'll say that in the 31 months that I have been editing here, I've gained substantial knowledge of the policies and guidelines. I am convinced that I can be trusted to avoid areas that I am not comfortable admining in, and I hope that others are similarly convinced of this. --Jakob (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from SilkTork
7. Building on Q4: You come upon a discussion or AfD to close it and find all those involved seek A, with nobody seeking B, yet B is the appropriate option. What do you do?
A: While consensus does require the strength of all the arguments to be measured, closing a discussion with an outcome nobody has supported seems like a supervote. Therefore, I would be unable to close the discussion in favor of option B. If the AFD had not already been relisted three times, I would relist it and wait for further input. If it had been relisted three times already, I would close it as "no consensus". --Jakob (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There is also the option of leaving a comment yourself as a fellow user. Sometimes those involved in the discussion may not be aware of the appropriate action. Leaving a comment would also assist the direction of future discussion and aid someone to close the discussion appropriately. If you become an admin (and I think you will) you sometimes need to take off your admin hat in order to do the right thing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional questions from K6ka
8. What is the difference between a block and a ban? On other websites, the two may be used interchangeably, but on Wikipedia, the two are not the same. So, what's the difference?
A: A block is a technical measure to prevent one from editing and can be temporary or indefinite. It can be issued by any uninvolved administrator. A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges (typically for a long time), and it can only be issued by a community discussion or by the arbitration committee. A ban is virtually always enforced by a block, but most blocked editors aren't formally banned. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
9. Suppose you're patrolling Special:NewPages and a new, inexperienced editor creates a biography that clearly fails notability. You Google the subject and you only get links to social media websites, with no reputable sources confirming this person's existence or notability. You tag the page with A7, naturally. The new user removes the deletion tag and continues to expand on the article, again with no sources or any proof of notability. You re-instate the deletion tag, stating that the page author may not remove such tags in both your edit summary and the message you leave on their talk page. Several minutes go by, and this should've been enough time for the editor to see your message - however, they remove the deletion tag again. What do you do in this situation? (For this question, assume that you are not an administrator)
A: I would reinstate the tag once more and warn them again with a higher-level warning. If they remove the tag again, reporting the issue to a noticeboard (ANI most likely; I once reported a similar case to that board) would be the next logical step. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
10. You're patrolling recent changes and you catch sight of an edit war. A heated one too. One of the edit warriors is a sysop, the other is a new and inexperienced user. The sysop threatens to block the inexperienced user for edit warring, after leaving three nasty, newbie-biting warnings on the talk page. The new user is firm in their position for their edits and repeatedly revert the reverts. There is a discussion on the talk page, but the users are not stopping the reverts and then discussing (as is required), but are discussing and reverting at the same time. How would you resolve the situation? (For this question, assume that you are not an administrator)
A: I would notify/remind both users (by writing a message, not typing out a template warning) edit warring is inappropriate and would also caution the admin against biting the newbies. If they continued to edit war and breached 3RR, I would report them to the edit warring noticeboard. --Jakob (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional questions from SuperHamster
11. Expanding on bans a bit: Other than site bans, what are the different types of bans?
A: There are page bans, topic bans, and interaction bans. Page bans forbid an editor from editing a specific page, though they usually may still revert simple vandalism to that page. Topic bans are similar, but apply to all pages within a topic. For instance, if one were topic-banned from editing dog-related pages, they could not edit Seaman (dog), Labrador Retriever, WP:WikiProject Dogs, Talk:Dog, etc. If A is interaction-banned from interacting with B, they may not leave messages on B's talk page, revert B's edits, or mention B anywhere else on the site. Exceptions to these three types of bans include reverting simple vandalism and BLP violations, and making a legitimate ban appeal. --Jakob (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
12. Is it possible for an administrator to unilaterally impose a ban on an editor?
A: No, it is not. Bans must be applied by the community or the Arbitration Committee. --Jakob (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Addendum: However, admins may apply discretionary sanctions to other editors, but only in topic areas where this has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee. --Jakob (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
13. You come across an editor with a username that is clearly that of an organization, and while they have made recent edits, none of them are related to that organization. How do you proceed?
A: Such a username should only be blocked if they have made actual promotional edits. Since they have not, leaving them a message along the lines of {{Uw-username}} would be appropriate. --Jakob (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Jakec, do you want to comment on WP:ISU and its relevance to this question? Mkdwtalk 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's one of those scenarios where policy and practice don't line up. At UAA, we rarely block accounts that haven't edited, and if their edits are unrelated to the company I'd decline the UAA report and suggest (or ask the reporter to suggest) that they change their username. We even have template messages like Wait until the user edits. for that purpose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from SD0001
14. In your answer to Q1, you say that you don't expect yourself to be closing AfDs. Why is it that you think you shall always remain incompetent to do so?
A: In the past (the first half of 2013) I performed some poorly-thought-out NACs. However, now that I think about it, I have not performed a bad NAC in roughly two years and several people specifically commended my AFD work on this RFA alone. Given this (especially the second point), I may be willing to branch out into closing uncontroversial AFDs at some point in the future. --Jakob (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from Biblioworm
15. What is your view on admin accountability? (WP:ADMINACCT) Do you believe that admins should be obligated to directly and civilly explain their actions whenever they are questioned? If so, what action should be taken if an admin fails to do this?
A: I believe that admins should be held accountable for all their actions and that they should respond to any good-faith query regarding their actions. If an admin repeatedly makes poor actions and fails to respond to queries or repair the damage, then they should be desysopped, either through an arbcom case or (if they are open to recall) through the recall process. --Jakob (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional questions from User:B
16. As you most likely know, administrators are not permitted to block users with whom they are "involved". What does "involved" mean to you? Consider this scenario: You block a user for 3RR. He immediately contests the block on the grounds that you are an "involved" editor, pointing to a debate from some time ago in which the two of you held opposite views. (You had forgotten about the debate and did not make the connection until he pointed it out.) What would you do? --B (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
A:
17. Please pick any contested discussion (meaning that there are some people who agree and some who disagree with the requestor) at Wikipedia:Non-free content review or Wikipedia:Files for deletion#Old discussions and tell how you would close it and why. --B (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
A:
Additional questions from Ritchie333
18. A brand new user creates an article whose only content is "waterworks corner is on the a406 near woodford". What do you do?
A: There is at least one valid sentence and a subject ("waterworks corner") is defined. Thus, A1, A3, and G1 would not be applicable speedy deletion criteria. There do seem to be a few miscellaneous mentions of this roundabout [1] [2] [3]. I eventually found something substantial-looking (though I can't say for sure since I only get a snippet view) here. With this in mind, I'd leave the article alone in hopes the newbie would return and develop it further. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 13:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
19. What action would you take against the following usernames:
  • i hate abusive admins
  • BoiseBookShops
  • John At Spatula City
  • Mark Reckless
  • Mark Abusive
  • Denniss Brownn
  • BringersOfDarkness
A:
  • "i hate abusive admins" -- block with a {{uhblock}}. This account is clearly here to troll.
  • "BoiseBookShops" -- depends on if they have promoted an entity by the name of Boise Book Shops (in which case I would block), though I wonder about the likelihood of a business being named Boise Book Shops. If they had not promoted such an entity, I would leave a message such as {{uw-username}} on their talk page (assuming there was evidence such a business existed) or take no action against the name (if such a business did not exist, which appears to be the case).
  • "John At Spatula City" -- identifies an individual, so I wouldn't block. Would leave a note advising them about COI if they had created or edited anything related to Spatula City.
  • "Mark Reckless" -- since Mark Reckless is a notable politician, I would block with {{Uw-ublock-famous}}
  • "Mark Abusive" -- if they had no edits or constructive edits, I would tag the UAA report with {{UAA|E}} and warn the user for their username with {{uw-username}}. If they were editing disruptively, I would block.
  • "Denniss Brownn" -- would block as too similar to Dennis Brown, a Wikipedia admin. If they had no edits or only constructive edits, I would use {{uw-ublock-double}}; if they were trolling, vandalizing, or making attacks, I would use {{uw-uhblock-double}}.
  • "BringersOfDarkness" -- if they were promoting a band or other group named Bringers of Darkness, I would block. If they had no edits or only unrelated edits, I'd mark the UAA report with {{UAA|W}} or {{UAA|e}}
Additional question from ToonLucas22
20. Regarding the answer given to Q7, lets say the following: Someone nominates a page for deletion, 6 people vote Keep, 2 people vote Delete. All arguments given on the votes are weak, and it has been 7 days since the nomination. What would you do?
A: I think the most sensible thing to do would be to would be to add my own (policy and guideline based) comments to the discussion, provided that I did have a strong opinion. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Additional question from John
21. You are asked to intervene at a talk page. Two groups of editors are talking past each other. There is low-level name calling and frequent resort to ad hominem arguments on the talk page. At the article itself there is edit-warring. Some of it centres around a disputed wording, which in turn depends upon interpretation and selection of sources. Both groups of editors include intelligent and well-meaning established editors; there are some SPAs and IPs on both sides. Some of them seem like they may be participants who are logged out. What would you do first? Second? Third?
A:
Additional question from Hawkeye7
22. Following up on your answer to Question 15, you indicated that you are agree with admins being held accountable for their off-wiki actions. Would you be comfortable with an admin being de-sysopped for having an affair with the wife of another Wikipedian?
A:

General comments


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

For disclosure: my previous accounts include King jakob c (the account I had from August 2012 to February 2013 before losing the password), King jakob c 2 (my old account name; recreated when moving files on Commons after I was renamed here, but before I was renamed there), and Jakebot (my bot account; ran into technical difficulties and abandoned the task). --Jakob (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Support
  1. Cautious Support, Jakec holds the bit on Wikidata, and has made a few mistakes, and so I'd expect for Jakec to make some mistakes here as well. I do think Jakec has the right attitude, and would probably make a good padawan (Any takers?). I think he'd be a net positive. --AmaryllisGardener talk 02:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. I supported him during his last RFA and he has not lost my trust and support this time. I trust that he will perform admin actions carefully and with the use of discretion. Jianhui67 TC 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Nothing to be concerned about here. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Seems to have genuinely improved since last RfA. I think they'd be a good admin. StewdioMACK Talk page 06:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Has a solid grounding in deletion policy and practice, as evidenced by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmyn Tyler and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Bancorp. Even when he's swimming against the tide, contributions are often cogent: here the candidate nominates a secondary school for deletion, runs up against the well-known community consensus to the contrary, but nonetheless makes a highly compelling case for deletion that I would have supported. Recent UAA reports (about 20 that I spot-checked) all seem ok. The only one that didn't result in a block was the User "Arianagrande60601" reported for the reason "Violation of the username policy as a misleading username. Seems to suggest that the user is Ariana Grande. A consistent vandal/disruptive editor as well.." But a UAA clerk seems to have wrongly cleared this from the UAA list on the misunderstanding that the user had been blocked.[4]. So the editor is still at large. Anyway, I'm no UAA expert so can't judge whether the report was correct or not. Following my review, I do not consider there to be anything that concerns me to the point that I would not support this candidate to help replenish the ranks of administrators. And, of course, even accounting for the weaknesses of our GA review process, you don't get through it 18 times without at least a fundamental level of competence in our core content policies. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support. Jake has generally good contributions, and is an admin on Wikidata, so he knows Wikimedia project guidelines and policies. I supported in his last RfA, and I see improvement in knowledge of policies since previous RfA. Epic Genius (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support per user's competence as demonstrated by Mkativerata, which overrules certain concerns in the oppose section. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support- I've seen Jakec around and he seems responsible and intelligent. Reyk YO! 15:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support. I've seen Jake around and generally thought he was sensible and a nice chap. We've bumped into each other at DYK and, while fairly obscure streams are not what my area of expertise, I respect his efforts and dedication—knowledge is knowledge, after all. I've also seen him at UAA, where I'm one of the regular admins (@Mkativerata: I guess you could call me a UAA expert; I wouldn't have blocked that account for the username alone, though I probably would have blocked them as a vandal and there are certainly admins who would have blocked for the username—it's a judgement call) and I've been generally impressed with the accuracy of his reports. We're crying out for more admins in front-line areas like RfPP and UAA (and to a lesser extent AIV) and I think Jake would be a valuable addition to the small number of admins who keep those boards from drowning under the weight of all the reports. I might suggest you leave borderline UAA reports to more experienced admins to start off with, but I'd suggest that to any new admin because it's an area where practice evolves more quickly than policy. At the end of the day, there's no such thing as a perfect admin, and you could probably find similar mistakes from any experienced editor (he's certainly not the first to PROD an article without fully understanding what the subject was; it happens, and as long as it's an isolated incident, we shouldn't say any more about it). At the end of the day, he's trustworthy, he knows he's doing, and he wants to work in areas that are chronically short of admins at the minute. If he'd asked, I'd have nominated him. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Make that a strong support in light of this. If you're pissing off anonymous trolls, you're obviously doing something right! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    That troll has posted the same comment in the last 4 or 5 RFAs, so I don't think it's directed specifically to this candidate. --Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support per HJ Mitchell. I couldn't really say it any differently. Soap 16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support even though the opposition makes some good comments, I think it's net positive. Kharkiv07Talk 18:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support per HJ Mitchell. BethNaught (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support I don't expect perfection in RfA candidates, just competence, and I believe this candidate ably qualifies. I'm also glad that he has experience in specific areas that he expects to exercise admin tools which is preferable to a candidate having no particular idea about what areas they want to work in or starting off as an all-purpose admin (which I think is a big mistake). Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support: I think he will do at least as well as about 80% of current administrators just based on his current interpretation of policy, and much, much better than the administrators who haven't used their mops for months or even years. Risker (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support - I actually pushed this user to self-nominate. Lots of DYK work, editing work, etc. I don't see major worries here. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support - Content creator with an above-average AfD accuracy. Answers to tricky questions above are not quite perfect, but I can't see any Cause for Alarm! Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  17. Weak Support - Definitely see some good contributions to UAA which is always in need of additional help, but the answer to Q7 is a bit concerning. Nakon 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support As per others. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 00:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support; seems to have learned since his last RfA. Also, counterintuitively, Andrew's reason for opposing makes me more inclined to support, not less. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support: Net positive. Questions well answered. Good wishes. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support (moved from neutral as I was waiting for any concerns, but none of them cut it for me): Fine contributions, solid grasp on policy, doesn't seem to be any incivility recently, support. The answer to question 7 is slightly concerning, but all the other questions were answered well (question 5 always seems to stump editors, but it was answered well by the candidate). Esquivalience t 02:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support per Titodutta. Best wishes. The Snowager-is awake 03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support Am satisfied by the answers to the questions. Not blown away or anything, but they demonstrate an understanding of policy and no raise no serious concerns. I certainly agree with Randy in the neutral section, and the IP on the talk page raised a legitimate point about not helping a new user who was clearly seeking help, but the editor remains a net positive. Swarm X 04:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  24. Support - Adequate tenure, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Nice percentage of work done to mainspace. Nice answers to questions. No concerns. Carrite (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  25. troppuS - .evitisop teN raMseR (CTU) 5102 hcraM 52, 01:05
  26. Support No concerns. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  27. OK. No concerns. I don't expect admins to be perfect; I expect them to be sensible, willing to learn, level headed and unlikely to make serious errors or personal attacks. In relation to my question, while commenting in favour of option B would be the ideal response, I'm happy to support for admin someone who relists rather than supervotes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  28. Support as a net positive. Good answers to questions, many of which don't have One Right Answer. I see maturity (and a decent interval) since their last RFA, and supports above from editors (particularly HJ) whose judgment I trust. Miniapolis 13:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  29. Support. I am not convinced by the opposes. The candidate passes my basic standards, and there are also a few extra pluses, such as their GAs and DYKs. Nobody is perfect, and it's quite silly to deny the tools to a person because they haven't gotten everything right. (That seems to be the prevalent tendency these days.) If any very serious matters come up in the oppose section, I'll consider changing, but I'm supporting for now. --Biblioworm 15:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  30. Support While the answer to Q7 was not optimal, it could have been far worse (like closing "B" with a supervote). As many peopple here have already observed, admins should be good, but nobody's perfect. With the many content contributions of this editor, I think they'll be a net positive overall and won't do stupid things with the tools. --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support - will be a net positive, I'm sure. GiantSnowman 19:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  32. Support. He will make a great administrator. --Carioca (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support The candidate seems to have been a valuable Wikipedian and has shown no significant signs of trouble. He knows his limits and doesn't plan to exceed them, but will probably grow into new areas over time. I think he will add to the quality of the project.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  34. Support I'm convinced. I think it's fine that he's only interested in working in limited admin areas, and I feel I can trust him should he decide to branch out. MusikAnimal talk 02:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  35. Support- I'm more or less convinced. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support- He's not going to be bad admin..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 04:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support. As far as I can tell, the CSD nominations seem to be fine. AfD comments are uninspiring, but nothing controversial. As an aside, I am a little disappointed that his signature does not actually contain his username. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support OK answers and edit history. I appreciate the opposes, but they aren't compelling enough, so I shall park my shellac here. WHYNOT. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support, with the comment that I expect that if successful, the candidate will take the concerns expressed on this page into account as he starts out as an admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  40. Support I'm not seeing anything that makes me think the tools will be abused. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  41. Support Minor concerns. No major concerns. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  42. Support He now seems to have sufficient experience and recent history does not show any errors. Ideally, a wider range of editing experience is better, but this is sufficient for the purpose--we have many excellent admins with similar. I'm glad he persisted. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  43. Support. The only correct answer to Q4 (and thus Q7) is "unask the question". "the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion"? Really? I'm not seeing anything to be concerned about here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  44. Support CSD is pretty slow so it would be good to have another admin helping there. UAA is usually pretty busy too. Looks like a good nominee. Rosario Berganza 03:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  45. Support low-profile, low-drama, high-productivity content creator with a clear set of administrative interests. Good. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  46. Support I think we should give him a chance here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  47. Support Good answers to my questions. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  48. Support given the answers to the questions. --TL22 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  49. Support with confidence that this candidate will be a positive addition to the administrative roster. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 17:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  50. Support - We need more admins and he fits the bill in my opinion; the oppositional comments below do not cause me to be concerned. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support since the editor seems to have shown good follow-up since his last attempt. Teddy5288 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  52. Support - I see good content creation, AfD participation and reasonable answers to hypothetical questions. I see no reason not to give my full support.- MrX 00:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  53. Support - Has an adequate grasp on policy. Altamel (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  54. Support — The PROD tag on Fulani proverb was a minor oversight that anyone could have made. The name of the article at the time did give the impression that it might be better suited for Wiktionary. His post on the creator's talk page doesn't strike me as particularly gruff or unfriendly, although I do think the terse WP:NOTDICTIONARY rationale may rub some people the wrong way. Nothing worth opposing him over, especially seeing as it was an isolated incident (if you'd even call it that). No one has procured any evidence that the issues raised at his first RfA are still present in his contributions; on the contrary, the points made by Mkativerata seem to reflect significant growth on his part. Ultimately, I'm not convinced that Jakec is in any way unsuited for adminship at this time. Kurtis (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  55. Support The answers to the additional questions indicate a nuanced degree of policy comprehension. I think this user will do just fine as an admin. --Gaff (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  56. Support per DGG and Gaff. NORTH AMERICA1000 03:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  57. Support. Looks like Jakec will make a useful addition to the admin corps.  Philg88 talk 07:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  58. Support. I've been noticing Jakec for a while after seeing the article contributions on waterways. I'm not concerned about the issues alluded to here and have checked contributions this year. He's not a dick, gets and cares about creating a quality encyclopedia, wants and is able to do boring administrative work - Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  59. Support, as per HJ Mitchell. The fact that Jacek does not intend to use all the admin tools is immaterial. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  60. Support no objection. Not an issue he doesn't plan to use the mop much. We are hardly running short on mops, and I'm sure whatever this candidate does with his will be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  61. Support Should be a net positive with the bit. Dennis Brown - 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  62. Support fine by me. Matiia (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  63. Support most likely will be net positive. Contributed enough and in such a fashion that I know has interests of 'pedia at heart. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  64. Support - I was hesitant at first because of claims of a lack of maturity and past problems on Wikidata; however, his time here on Wikipedia seems to support my conclusion that he would make a good admin, and his answers to the questions are satisfactory. The high amount of disambiguation link notifications on his talk page is a bit concerning, because it implies a potential lack of attention to detail, but overall, that seems like a small risk. Additionally, the answer to question 7 was less than ideal, but not everybody is good at thinking outside the box 100% of the time. Ultimately, I think the user would be a net positive to the admin team. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  65. Opposes are unconvincing, and seem mostly reluctant in any case. Wizardman 22:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  66. Support a solid candidate who I feel is worthy of the job and has gained quite a bit of experience since the first RFA. I'm not at all convinced by the opposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  67. Support Articulate, good answers even with a weak one, good content creation and DYKs. Otherwise, per HJ Mitchell, Mkativerata, MusikAnimal, Biblioworm, Carrite and Dennis Brown. Donner60 (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  68. Support I usually start an RfA by looking at the oppose !votes. The answer to Q7 did not impress me, but I don't consider that to be fatal. The other objections struck me as unpersuasive. I have a lot of criteria I tend to look at, but it can be boiled down to three general concepts. Basic competency; do they have a minimal level of experience? Does the candidate have a clue and know their way around to the extent that they are not likely to make any dreadful mistakes? The next is evidence of basic good will. That means no history of malicious behavior towards anything or anyone on the project. But more importantly a demonstrated track record of TRYING TO HELP. The last one is humility. Do they own their mistakes and try to learn from them? Are they capable of admitting that there are areas or subjects outside their expertise where maybe an issue should be passed to someone else? And are they willing to ask questions or ask for help themselves? No where on my check list is infallibility. This candidate meets my criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  69. Support I agree with Ad Orientem's analysis directly above. I have interacted with Jakec a few times, and it has always been productive. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  70. Support Jake has generally submitted good contributions, and is an administrator on Wikidata, so he should know Wikimedia guidelines and policies. I think he really has had a change in heart. We all make mistakes, and he has clean up his reputation, and I am excited to see the work he will do in the future. Good luck Jake! CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  71. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  72. Support Content creators need the tools. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  73. Support As a net positive. Appreciate the concerns about maturity, and I see their basis, but I think those are balanced by the intent to contribute and awareness of these concerns. -- Scray (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  74. Support. Sure, the candidate isn't perfect, and there are some valid reasons given for the oppose !votes below, but I think the candidate has demonstrated the right attitude and answered some questions excellently - overall, I see a net positive. Good luck! — sparklism hey! 10:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  75. Support This RFA candidate / candidacy is a good example of why I wrote WP:NETPOS. I trust them to take it slowly with the tools. Pedro :  Chat  11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  76. Support We're all human, we all make mistakes; none of the ones pointed out in the discussion seem bad enough to warrant not giving Jakec access to the tools. /Julle (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose for the reasons I outlined in the previous RfA, and this RfB which came almost immediately after the previous RfA.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    (Nonbadgering clarification comment) Please note that the RfB was on Wikidata, not on En-WP. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    And to clarify why I used it to oppose: I don't think it reflects well on the candidate's judgement. Seems a bit over-eager in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose I came across one of the candidate's articles at DYK recently when I was looking for something to review: Roaring Brook (Hunlock Creek). It seemed to me that this was quite a trivial topic and I couldn't raise any enthusiasm for it. But if the candidate wants to crank out articles of this sort then he's welcome to do so and I am quite content to let him carry on. What bothers me is that, when I review the candidate's patrolling activity, he seems quite aggressive in wanting to delete other people's work. For example, consider Fulani proverb, which the candidate proposed for deletion. This isn't much of an article but the candidate seems to fail to appreciate its potential. There seems to be lots of material out there about the folk wisdom of the Fulani in books such as Africa's unwritten literatures or Proverbs, Textuality, and Nativism in African Literature. This seems a poor set of priorities: a brief trickle of water vs the folk wisdom of an entire people. And what's really out of order is proposing an article for deletion two hours after it was first created. The proposed deletion process is supposed to be only used in cases where no opposition is expected. If you look at the talk page of the new user one sees that they were welcomed and then immediately their new work was, in the same breath, proposed for deletion. Such action seems quite contrary to WP:BITE but it is sadly quite common in new page patrol and so the candidate is just following the example of others, I suppose. But I expect an admin to be more discerning and the candidate has a way to go, it seems. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    The example above has been dismissed as being isolated. It was just the first case I came to but, to check my finding, I took another look. After wading through a lot of streams, I found an AFD. In this case, the candidate argues that the topic be kept. There is no consensus so it is still there. The story concerned a 9-year old girl whose identity was supposed to be kept secret. But notice that, after the close, the girl's parents were identified. This seems to be a significant BLP problem and the candidate was on the wrong side of the argument IMO. He wasn't alone but, again, this doesn't seem to demonstrate the wisdom expected of an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Lacks experience and maturity. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Hipocrite, could you expand on why you think the user lacks maturity? I am still undecided on this RFA, and if there are maturity issues, that is something that would likely cause me to end up in the oppose section. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    Apologies, but the lack of maturity is a general feeling based on the totality of my review, and I can't really link to anything specific except "Through his language and actions I just don't believe he acts like an adult at all times." Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Unfortunately I have to Oppose this RFA too - The answer to Question 7 doesn't fill me with much confidence, (To me the obvious thing to do is to !vote "B"!), I'm also still not convinced on the maturity thing either ...., I'm sorry if this comes across harsh (I've tried making it friendly as possible) but looking back at there previous RFA it doesn't look like anything's changed since then, All that aside I wish you the best of luck here and for future RFAs. –Davey2010Talk 17:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - I have utmost respect for Jake, and he does great work. I particularly know him through his good work at the Teahouse. That being said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose due to experience/knowledge. I think the answer to Q7 could be better (should be casting a !vote). At the Teahouse last month, Jake brought up whether tagging CorenSearchBot's article tags with G12 was necessary. While I definitely encourage asking questions and I'm glad he did, I think this is something that could be readily known with an understanding of CSD (if not through exploring documentation, such as Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations), and this hints to a lack of adequate CSD experience. There are a few other points I've raised my eyebrow at, but I'll present those as questions above to get a clearer answer. That being said, I see great potential and wouldn't mind supporting in the future when things are more concrete. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Seems like a nice guy and a good editor. Still, I'm not convinced he has the breadth of working knowledge necessary to use the full scope of the tools he's seeking and is his very thin self-nom made no attempt to establish broad competence. I'm just not willing to sign on with giving tools to someone who hasn't demonstrated that he knows how to use them. A7 and Opposing votes #2 and #5 hint at the multitude of ways this can manifest itself as an issue in the future. Sorry. GraniteSand (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - you are not required to answer questions posed to you. Nor am I required to support. --B (talk) 06:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose this time round. I'm seeing a very nice guy who is here to build the encyclopedia, and I really wanted to support this one, but I'm not seeing good enough judgement yet. Q7 awful. In this AFD (the one Andrew mentioned in his follow-up posting), he says "If the tree in my front yard makes national news (for whatever reason), then it's notable as far as I'm concerned", and then "the article at hand isn't a WP:109PAPERS issue either, because the articles aren't all near-reprints of each other", although WP:109PAPERS doesn't actually require that if you read it carefully. My greatest concern is that he appears to have abandoned answering questions. The questions from User:B are not trolling and, even if he had some reason not to reply in detail, it would have been more courteous to explain that reason rather than simply ignoring the questions. Finally, I wanted to see his answer to Mkdw's follow-up about WP:ISU at Q13. It's unfortunate that HJ Mitchell chose to intervene there: Harry, the question was addressed to Jake, not to you, and if the practice differs from the policy then you should either fix the practice or get community agreement to change the policy, otherwise you're acting as if admin praxis overrides community consensus. But with all that said, I think Jake would have shown better judgement if he had adressed the question somehow. --Stfg (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 123#Whatever you think about the questions.... Says it better than I just did. --Stfg (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose- This will obviously pass. I don't think it should, yet. I'd much prefer it if we'd said "yes, you're coming along, but your judgement still seems lacking in some areas." NYB takes a different approach above, in supporting, where he says he trusts the candidate to take the criticism here on board. I hope he will, too, but in the current "appointment for life" scenario, I'd like to see that before I support. Sorry if that makes me a doubting old grouch. Be careful with the tools. Begoontalk 16:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Neutral

Neutral No opinion either way (for now). Moved to support.  Philg88 talk 06:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. Neutral, I don't see a reason to oppose, but I am not seeing a solid reason to support either. Good luck, either way.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I opposed this last candidates RFA so I will need to do a more thorough review of their contributions since then to make a final decision. I am concerned with the answer to Q7 though I too really dislike hypothetical scenario questions.Mkdwtalk 15:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral Moving to support. I disagree with the response to Q7, too. To me, the obvious response would be NOT to close the AfD but instead cast a !vote for solution B, then let another admin close it. --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I agree with Randykitty directly above me. It seems to me that part of being a good admin knowing when to be an admin and when to put down the mop and just be an editor. Also, in a previous question (Q4), Jakec wrote about an editor having "strong opinions" being a reason to close an RfC in their favor, but frequently editors on both sides hold strong opinions, forcefully expressed. What's inportant is not the strength of the editors' opinions, but who has policy on their side. Thus Jakec's conclusion was correct, to close in favor of B, but his reasoning (at, at least, his expression of that reasoning) was incorrect. BMK (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral I agree with User:Randykitty about the answer to the hypothetical question. (I'm suprised how many RfA candidates seem to make similar mistakes, fail to think outside the box, IAR, and do the right thing.) I can also see the rationale for some of the other concerns.--Gaff (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    Neutral, leaning Support Moved to support - I see good content creation, AfD participation and reasonable answers to hypothetical questions. I will look deeper later and revise my !vote accordingly.- MrX 11:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC) 00:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - The sample of edits I looked at seem fine and none of the reasons for current opposes worry me. The only reason I'm not voting Support is that I don't like editors having a signature that doesn't match their username; it confuses me sometimes and it must be very confusing for newbie editors. DexDor (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Neutral leaning towards support; slight concern with some of the answers regarding the areas the candidate doesn't want to work in, would have been more comfortable with answers along the lines of "ignore this" instead of making a best effort--not opposing as the best efforts seem reasonable. — xaosflux Talk 16:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - Randomly sampled edits seemed good to me. Didn't find any concerns for opposition. I agree with AmaryllisGardener that with mistakes in the past, the candidate could benefit from guidance. Similar to Xaosflux, I do not feel sufficiently comfortable with the level of experience in the areas different from what the candidate said he plans to focus on, but as admin privileges seem to be of the umbrella variety here, I'm not sure there are any alternatives. ← scribbleink talk 12:06, 30 March 2015 (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 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