Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VFA)
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
Dodger67 40 8 5 83 16:40, 27 August 2014 4 days, 17 hours
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot I NotifyOnline at 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

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

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged, and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process

Latest RfXs update
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
Philg88 RfA Successful 21 August 2014 123 0 0
Mkativerata2 RfA No consensus 10 August 2014 78 34 2
Armbrust3 RfA Unsuccessful 4 August 2014 45 42 11
Sentiments777 RfA WP:NOTNOW 1 August 2014 0 2 0
Solarra RfA Withdrawn 31 July 2014 57 29 4
AlanM1 RfA Unsuccessful 29 July 2014 47 33 14
Arumpostasest RfA Withdrawn 12 July 2014 0 12 2

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant contributions to the encyclopedia are low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RFA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages.
Expressing opinions
While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic. If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfA, you may wish to read Advice for RfA voters.
The 'requests for adminship' process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA !voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and give more weight to constructive comments over unproductive comments.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
Consensus at RFA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. While the Neutral comments are ignored for calculating the RfA's percentage, they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination.
A list of procedures to complete to close an RfA may be found here.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer.
If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait several months before reapplying.

Current nominations for adminship


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (40/8/5); Scheduled to end 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Dodger67 (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to present as a candidate for adminship Roger (User:Dodger67). Roger joined Wikipedia in 2007 and he has been an increasingly productive editor ever since. He is the originator of and the top contributor to WikiProject Disability. He has created 43 articles, and has improved many more.

I have frequently noticed Dodger67 take on an advisory role, particularly with new users. He has been an active participant in WP:WikiProject Articles for creation, having reviewed well over 1300 draft articles. He has spent a lot of time explaining and making suggestions to help the new users improve their articles, not only on his talk page but also at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and the Teahouse. He has also contributed extensively at the Help desk (over 1700 edits), as well as answering questions at the Reference desk.

Dodger67 has both initiated and participated in quite a few AfD discussions. I have been impressed with his willingness to change his position during discussions when presented with new information or policy-based arguments. He has also protected and improved Wikipedia by rooting out and nominating for deletion many copyright violations and advertisements. These nominations, along with decline templates and comments on AfC submissions, represent the majority of his deleted edits.

Because of his consistently positive track record, I believe that Dodger67, if given the tools to help with the backlog of administrative tasks, would use them judiciously and be even more of an asset to the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept this nomination with thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I think I'd begin with relatively simple tasks such as moving over redirects that fairly frequently are a blockage to accepting new drafts at AFC. I'd also help out with Speedy deletions and other uncontroversial mopping up such as dealing with clear vandalism. When it comes to the more technical or controversial administrative tasks I will at first observe how they are done and ask experienced admins for advice before following suit. It would also enhance my usefulness to be able to see previously deleted articles when reviewing AfC drafts or participating in AfD discussions, to distinguish new text from recreation of deleted content. The ability to restore deleted pages is also useful for helping out with G13 refunds and for userfying content for AfC submitters who promise to remove POV. Later addition: It's clear from what I've learnt here that if I were to get the mop I would need to steer clear of closing AFDs, or any other administrative action relating to AFDs, until I get more experience participating in AFD discussions and nominations. 18:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Without a doubt WP:WikiProject Disability, which I and a few other editors started some years ago. Previous to the establishment of the Project the vast majority of coverage of disability-related topics were from an almost exclusively medical aspect. The Project has resulted in more balanced coverage of the topic by introducing the Social model of disability and other voices to articles about disability. The Project has also helped increase the number and variety of articles concerning disability - particularly those areas "invisible" when viewed from an exclusively medical POV such as the political, economic, and social aspects of disability.
My participation at AFC, though sporadic, is also a nett gain for the English Wikipedia IMHO. In general I also believe my being South African and having a physical disability helps to increase the variability in the Wikipedian population thus reducing the systemic biases. My contributions at various help desks has, I believe, been useful to newbies and thus advanced the cause of editor retention too.
Other "Content" WikiProjects I am active in are WP:WikiProject South Africa, WP:WikiProject Military History, WP:WikiProject Aviation as these are topic areas I am interested in and have some experience, as well as a fairly decent bookshelf of sources for when Google-fu is inadequate.
As far as new content creation is concerned my contributions are more modest, I tend to expand and improve existing articles more than create new ones. I know I am not a composer of scintillating prose so the articles I have initiated (about 40 so far) are fairly basic, no GAs or FAs. (I constantly have a handful of drafts at various stages of development in my sandbox.) I have however participated in significantly upgrading a few articles together with other editors - Joseph Merrick and Stephen Hawking come to mind. One of my strengths is in doing research and finding good sources.
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 I have been an active Wikipedian for about 7 years (with about 40,000 edits on my log) it is practically inevitable that I have been involved in a few conflicts. When the situation gets stressful I tend to withdraw, some time out helps to cool down. None of the conflicts I have been involved in (so far) have resulted in blocks or other action against me. (The only entry in my block log was a mistake by the admin, corrected within a minute.) I believe my "step away and cool off" strategy is effective and it will remain how I deal with future situations that may become heated. Calling on other Wikipedians, and in future fellow Admins (if successful here), to help out can also be an effective way of defusing tension by introducing fresh opinions.
Additional question from Dusti
4. I see that you've been fairly active at Articles for Creation, which is great. Are these four articles ones that you accepted as submissions? I see in your contributions that you added them as recent AFC creations.
A: Yes I did accept them. At AFC the objective is not to pass only perfect "bulletproof" articles. Any draft that; does not contain blatant violations of policy, is written in intelligible English, and has at least a few references that support a reasonable (not "bulletproof") claim of notability, should be accepted. An oft quoted "meme" at AFC is that accepted drafts should have "at least a 50% chance of surviving AFD". If none of your Accepts end up getting wacked at AFD you're being too strict. It's something I have to work on because the deletion rate of my Accepts is in fact far too low.
In the case of the "Madeline Sands" article its content was essentially duplicated in another article, so it's deletion has not resulted in any significant loss of content. The "History of the Department of English at the University of Groningen" suffered from the fact that there was no "Department of English at the University of Groningen" article to be its "parent". Such "History of..." articles are usually created by being split off from such a "parent" article. In the case of the "Medical Family Therapy" article the "closer inspection" of the sources that revealed their weakness was done by an experienced member of WikiProject Medicine, this kind of "expert" evaluation is one of the roles we expect WikiProjects to perform. Similarly in the case of the "Brian A. Levine" article it was sent to AFD by someone who appears to have access to academic sources and criteria such as "h-index". I might also point out that all four of these AFDs had very low participation - five or fewer !votes - as an admin I would tend to relist rather than close such AFDs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Additional questions from John
5. User:Axl has raised your contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mangotsfield United F.C. as problematic. What do you think about it looking back a few months later?
A Not my finest moment at WP, I'm afraid I responded badly to the dismissive tone and what I percieved to be an implication that I acted in bad faith. It was a slip in my usual composure. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
6. I see you put down Stephen Hawking as an article you were proud of your contributions to. It isn't in great shape now, and I notice you didn't contribute to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stephen Hawking/archive1 although you were pinged. The article was delisted from FA status. What would you see as the way forward for that article?
A Ideally someone would come along and take on the task of leading an effort to improve the article back to FA status. As to my non-involvement in any one such effort, it's not of any great consequence or significance, perhaps I was preoccupied with other matters at the time. There are almost 5 million articles on en.WP, most needing some kind of attention - I do what I can, when I can, I'm not "married to" any particular article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from SilkTork
7. What is your view on the recent Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer and the events leading up to it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
A The letter appears to be a reasonable attempt to get the attention of the WMF about an important issue - the lack of open consultation with the volunteer editor community about changes to the software. The issue of poor communication between the WMF and users however has a far longer history than the two latest issues addressed in the letter. I remember earlier incidents such as "the Watchlist War", the Indian Education Program and the premature Visual Editor deployment which caused upheaval and unhappiness. I suspect a major contributing factor to these problems is a lack of understanding on the part of WMF staff and coders of how we editors perform the many things we do. How many WMF staff have significant experience as editors? I'm not sure that a letter demanding a couple of changes to software code will do anything to really get to the core of the problem - the imbalance in the power relationship between the Foundation and Volunteer contributors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Additional question from Philg88
8. Please could you explain your reasons behind nominating this university and this cathedral for deletion, when they are both in topic areas that are generally accepted as notable and were subsequently closed as "keep"?
A Notability is defined in terms of the existence of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources - thus it logically follows that when an article shows a complete lack of such sources the notability of the subject is, by the logic of the definition, questionable. "Generally accepted" ≠ "Absolute certainty" thus the "generally accepted" should be amenable to testing. If a presumption of notability is never tested it effectively becomes a permanent exemption from the Notability rule - an irrevocable "get out of jail card". These presumptions need to be tested to remain valid. I believe that every article that exists on WP purely on the strength of assertions that "it's notable because it's big/important/whatever" or "yes there are no acceptable references but the sources surely must exist somewhere" are effectively no different from WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments unless they are at some point challenged. If I had not taken these articles to AFD they would most probably still be unsourced. I don't really understand why "being wrong" at AFD is regarded as such an enormous "crime" - ultimately the system works - neither article was deleted and in fact by the time their AFDs were closed they were proven to be notable and no longer relied on a mere presumption of notability. The strength of WP is the system - multiple people working to expand, maintain and improve the project - any one editor's mistake is not a disaster as the system ultimately fixes it. If it hurts your ego to occasionally be wrong - you're in the wrong place.
Additional questoin from Dusti
9. (I'm expanding on @Philg88:'s question above). According to the AfD Stats tool your AfD noms for the last year are (out of 10) 3 delete, 1 redirect, 5 keep, and 1 speedy keep. Can you explain your thought process a little more on those keeps as well?
A In general see my reply to Question 8 above. Those that have not already been discussed: I nominated Global Sources because it did not comply with WP:CORP - I withdrew the nomination when the sourcing was improved to the extent that compliance was no longer in question. Canine Companions for Independence was kept on the strength of claims that acceptable sources exist - none of those sources have yet been added, so it actually still is not in compliance with the requirement for proper sourcing. I nominated Qualitas Career Academy as an unsourced advertorial and again withdrew the nomination when the problem was adequately addressed. TUI Travel was another advertorial without any independent sources when I nominated it - being a big important company is no excuse for having a bad article about it. The notability of Elliott Museum was also not clear when I nominated it, note that it is still tagged for lacking secondary sources. As a small privately owned museum of apparently only local significance it could not claim the same level of presumption of notability as a major national or regional/state public museum could rely on, thus the need for proper sourcing. The AFD of Evelyn Mase was not a clear cut instant "Keep" - that result came after significant discussion of the applicability or not of WP:NOTINHERITED. In the case of Rama Jyoti Vernon my concern was the "walled garden" nature of the sources, when better mainstream press sources were found and added I withdrew the nomination. Although AFD is not intended to be clean-up, if clean-up nevertheless happens as a consequence of an AFD nomination the result is an improved article and thus it's a positive for Wikipedia as a whole. No harm was done to any article (or fluffy bunnies) as a consequence of these AFD nominations - because the system works as advertised and is inherently self correcting and resistant to damage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Follow Up - what is your interpretation and understanding of WP:BEFORE?
Reply - I'm afraid I must admit I have not actually read WP:BEFORE until now, which goes a long way to explain - but obviously not excuse - the problems I've had with AFD. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think the Twinkle tool makes it far too easy to AFD a page without having to follow any actual procedure. Unlike Speedy which has clear cut criteria, AFD is filled with nuances and subtleties that are easy to ignore or disregard when using Twinkle. Luckily or unluckily (depending on one's POV) I have not used AFD much - which turns out to be the proverbial two-edged sword here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

General comments

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


  1. Support – Good candidate. I worked with him on a DYK and he was very easy to work with. I am One of Many (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support - two candidates in one week where I can !vote on name recognition alone! Dodger has been excellent at AFC, an area where we need all the help we can get. Go Phightins! 16:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Support - his work at WP:WikiProject Disability has contributed massively to the encyclopedia, and in our brief interaction during the development of its style guide, I found him unfailingly collaborative. --Stfg (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Reluctantly moved to temporary oppose. --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support. Does excellent and valuable work at AfC. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support - 100% edit summaries! —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support as nominator. Go, Roger!Anne Delong (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support Excellent track record. Edit summaries, AFC work, started a WikiProject, and seems extremely friendly and well-suited in terms of his temperament. If the worst complaint someone can make against you is your signature, I can't see anything but a net positive here. ceranthor 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support No concerns. benmoore 17:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support, a highly capable and tireless helper in many venues. Huon (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support, A couple words about AfC for those who haven't participated—reviewing at AfC is not intended to put the reviewer in the place of being a one-editor AfD. The bar per community consensus is "an even shot at surviving deletion" or better. AfC is also a triage process—as I write this, around two thousand six seven hundred new editors are waiting for reviews, hundreds of whom have been waiting over a month, some of whom will have given up by now. AfC is a triage process, no more, no less, and expecting it to be clean is akin to expecting top-notch neurosurgery in an ER. Don't like it? Come help. But don't take it out on the candidate. This editor does tireless, accurate, thoughtful work and always manages to keep a level head. They will make an excellent admin. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support per strong nominating statement and excellent answers to questions. Q3 convinces me they have the right temperament, and Q1 that they are cautious. (New Admin School will help BTW.) Answer to Q4 thoroughly dispels concerns raised in the question. We need admins willing to help in backlogged areas. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  11. Support A strong candidate that has been here since 2007, he's helped in many areas especially WikiProject Disability, I'm happy to support! StevenD99 21:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  12. Exactly per Joe decker. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  13. Support I've enjoyed working with Roger at WP Disability and am confident he will be a good addition to the admin team. --Mirokado (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  14. Support Plenty of content creation and all around good work. Will make a good admin. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  15. Support. My review and the opinions above lead me to conclude that Dodger67 is an excellent candidate. He has background and many good contributions in several areas or the project. I think he has enough content creation and his work in AfC provides valuable experience in learning what is required for an article and in dealing with people. He has shown initiative and energy. An occasional AfD position that is against consensus or mildly testy remark over a whole body of excellent work is nowhere near enough to cause me concern. Net positive and then some. Donner60 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  16. Support Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  17. ///EuroCarGT 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  18. Support Works hard and seems dedicated, thats quite enough for me. —Frosty 03:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  19. Support Dodger67 has made some impressive contribution to AFC. I see no major reason to oppose. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  20. Support - experienced and trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  21. Support - Having 100% edit summaries is the basis for my support. Also nice job with WP Disability and AFC. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 05:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  22. Support – Have had nothing but good interactions with this user. Graham87 07:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  23. Support - Kraxler (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  24. Support - looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  25. Kusma (t·c) 14:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  26. Yes. I like the answer to the [Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer question. Shows understanding of the issues facing Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  27. Support All ok with me - mop please! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  28. Support Looks like a knowledgeable and helpful contributor. Tina Gasturich (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  29. Support as there is almost no evidence they will abuse the tools or position.--MONGO 19:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  30. Weak Support - recent nominations of AFDs worry me. But I think he will use the mop wisely.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 20:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  31. Support Quite frankly, I thought you were an administrator already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  32. Support lots of help desk work; 100% edit summaries; excellent AfC work. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  33. Secret account 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  34. Support. My comments in the 'neutral' section still stand as very much valid. The creation at Rajendra Chaudhary (Rajasthan politician) is still tagged and for an RfA candidate should not be (apparently this was not created by the candidate - only moved from Draft to mainspace with all its warts and wrinkles). While the participation at AfD is more or less adequate, 75% matching the outcome is rather low.Discounting the work on AfC because there has IMO been too much emphasis on it as the main claim for promotion, participation in other help venues demonstrates a solid knowledge of most policies and guidelines. I particularly appreciate his steady engagement and dedication to the project and his calm and mature approach to communication with other users. I was especially impressed with the answer to Q7 which clearly shows a deep understanding of some of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia core issues that the volunteer community has to contend with, and this more than anything else helped tip my decision to move my vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  35. Support I don't require a 100% record at Afd. I haven't got one myself, as I sometimes nominate things that could go either way in the hope that someone will fix them - and it does happen. Yes, I know some will disapprove, but if we get a better article out of it, all's well in the end. I've seen Roger around and not come across any problems. Plenty of clue, and can learn from the mistakes that any of us can make. At one time, I too thought he was an admin. Peridon (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  36. Support Most of the oppose reason says that This user has very few afd comments and has many wrong afds. But In my opinion I can't oppose a guys just because of this guy has few afd comments or made some wrong afds. I can't forget that he has over 1300 good AfC reviews. Which makes me clear about him that he knows all our important Notability, Referencing etc. policies. Which is one of the most important thing an admin should have. Next his behavior is really great. I haven't seen a user who has returned from his talkpage without his help and in addition his teahouse answers helped a lot of users. So he knows how to help a user when s/he needs help and this obviously proves that he knows WP policies. So I really can not oppose him. Finally in many places of Wikipedia I trust him more than myself. So I know he'll do a really good job with the mop. Face-smile.svg--Pratyya (Hello!) 13:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  37. Support Answers to questions demonstrate plenty of clue, and I've seen Dodger's good work at AfC (a particularly thankless part of the 'pedia). Per Peridon, AfD noms not much concern; the candidate has expressed no interest in closing AfD discussions right away, and I trust him to know when he's ready to do so. Miniapolis 14:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  38. Why not? Jianhui67 TC 14:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  39. Support Judging from his talk page interactions he has a good way of dealing with people, and seems to be experienced in what he needs to be experienced in to perform admin duties. I don't completely understand the AFD concerns. If he were making constant 'errors' of not passing AFCs then I'd understand not wanting him to have the delete button, but I don't see how him having the delete button could cause harm to the project if he arguably passes more AFCs than he should. Chuy1530 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  40. Support No concerns the candidate will be a good admin and a net positive to the project. Just stay away from AFD for a while. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Oppose. Infrequent AfD !voting—only 12 comments this year. With this nomination, Dodger67 mentions "the many problem tags" as evidence. Lugnuts was correct to point out that these tags are irrelevant to AfD. However Lugnuts didn't seem to accept that "the total absence of independent reliable sources" is evidence for possible non-notability. Rather than reiterate this point, Dodger67 chose to retort: "Which part of; the total absence of independent reliable sources = Not Notable; do you not understand?" It is mainly this last comment that concerns me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Axl: Perhaps 12 comments at AfD in 2014 is too few. The candidate made 31 comments at AfD in 2013, according to the tool. I respect your opinion and I'm curious if could you describe an approximate number or range (understanding that sometimes quality is more important than quantity) that would be satisfactory for the amount of time that has passed this year. I also recognize that the number of comments at AfD was also only part of your opposition. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Well, I don't have a hard-and-fast rule, but I would expect at least five per month from someone who intends to delete articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Oppose The acceptance of an article at afc does indeed require that there be a reasonable chance of acceptance at afd. This applies to each individual article, not overall. For those subjects where I am unable to judge, I leave to others. These particular articles should never have been accepted. They had no chance at all. I need to check more thoroughly of the candidates work tomorrow, but at this point I am sufficiently wary to oppose. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    No editor is perfect, and when one has completed thousands of reviews (I find that I underestimated) there are bound to be a few that could have been better. As you know, DGG, but others may not, AfC has a re-review process in which reviewers scrutinize each others' work. As can be seen from re-reviews (listed at the bottom) in the last two backlog drives, (June and March, Roger was mostly on point. I like that he is willing to admit errors when they are pointed out to him. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I have done some further checking. Any one error is excuable as an aberration, and anyone who does much work will make some misjudgments, but the number of gross errors is out of proportion, and their nature reveals what I take to be an indifference or disregard to the actually established standards. This lack of awareness is common to many beginners, and the ones who learn can do very well. At the level of an admin, we expect a knowledge good enough to correct others. It's not just a bias towards approval; it runs in both directions. In addition to those listed above, looking only at the last two weeks,there is the approval of a very promotional article I have just listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lion’s Heart; the decline of Gregory N. Todd despite the clear independent demonstration from official documentation of a major military position; the decline of Eta College as lacking sources for notability when all colleges are considered notable; the decline of the Deputy Minister of Defense Grigoriy Mihaylovich Naginskiy for lack of reliable sources, although they are plainly listed in the article. None of this would worry me if it were spread out over a long period, but to see all of this in the very recent work is in my opinion outside the limits for any reviewer, and especially an admin. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    There seems to be a paradox here: The acceptance of an article at afc does indeed require that there be a reasonable chance of acceptance at afd. This applies to each individual article, not overall. This isn't how percentages work, if you expect someone to have 90% of their accepted articles not deleted, it means 10% are expected to be deleted whether you're looking at 000s of articles or each individually. It's easy to retroactively look at that 10% and say each didn't have a 90% chance of passing, but if you follow that to it's logical conclusion, you're expecting 100% perfection (90% of those deleted 10% should have been kept (99% overall); 90% of the remaining 1% should've be kept (99.9% overall), ad infinitum) and not a "reasonable chance", hence the paradox. benmoore 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    I may not have been clear. For any particular AfC, it should be accepted if it would be likely to be accepted by the community. This applies to each particular AfC. If one approves an article with no chance of acceptance by the community, it's an error. If one declines one that will unquestionably be accepted , it is an error. If one accepts an article with a 60% chance, it is not an error regardless of what the community decides, but a difficult judgement. What's expected is not a 51% rate of guessing what the community will do, its knowing what are the clear cases. In such clear cases, the error level should be the same as expected at CSD, 5% at most for any editor except for a beginner, and better than that for an admin. As with all RfA applications, it's not the percentage correct, but the nature of the errors. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - I share some of the concerns about the Mangotsfield_United_F.C. AfD, but I can accept that it was not the candidate's best moment and not representative. But looking at the AfDs over the past year or so give me concern. Since last June, the candidate has nominated 10 articles for AfD, of which 7 closed as "keep." That seems high, although might be explanable if the nominations were particularly tricky. But of the 7 keeps I would say only Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manarcad Church was particularly tricky, and even there I have mild concerns about the tone of the candidate's responses when keep !votes started coming in. Of the others, 3 seem to have had sources available that would have been easy to find before the AfD nomination (Global Sources, Canine Companions for Independence, Rama Jyoti Vernon), and the other 3 were covered by specific notability guidelines (Mangotsfield_United_F.C., UCSI University, Qualitas Career Academy) and seem to have had other sources available. To his credit, the candidate often seems willing to withdraw nominations when evidence of notability starts coming in. But I remain concerned that the candidate seems to use the current state of the article to determine whether to nominate for AfD, rather than looking to what sources are available to improve the article, which I think is problematic for an admin. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Rlendog: see question nine above :) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, the responses to 8 and 9 did not alleviate my concerns. In fact, they enhanced them. No problem occassionally testing if an article that meets presumed notability. But those presumptions gained consensus for a reason. So when testing, the nomination should state something along the lines of "this article meets the special notability presumption, but it is unsourced and I searched for appropriate sources and couldn't find any, so I think this is a case where the article does not meet our guidelines despite the presumption." But in contrast, in several of these "tests" the appropriate sources did not seem particularly difficult to find. And I don't think it is appropriate to take credit for the cleanup that may have occured to articles as a result of the AfDs since, as the candidate notes, AfD is not for cleanup. There are more appropriate ways to clean up articles that do not result in the stress and time consuming overhead that AfD does.
    The comment about the Canine Companions for Independence article seems particualrly telling in this respect. Supposedly the candidate was so concerned about its lack of sourcing that he took it to AfD. And at AfD one speciifc source was linked and the location that others could be found, i.e., Google Books [1], was suggested. I would expect an admin, or admin candidate, who was so concerned about the sourcing of this article to now be saying something along the lines of "I wasn't aware of sources for the article when I nominated it, but some of the participants in teh AfD pointed me to sources, and so I added them." Instead, this candidate seems to take the fact that no one - including himself - has yet added those sources as a way to justify the nomination. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Comment by candidate - I'm afraid I don't understand your last comment. How can something that happened after the nomination have any bearing on the nomination itself, let alone be a justification for it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps not the best choice of words on my part, but I was referring to bring up that nomination even now, after it was closed as keep, to point out that "none of those sources have yet been added, so it actually still is not in compliance with the requirement for proper sourcing," which seems like a bit of an ex post facto justification. Maybe that is not how you meant it. I think your admission to not having read WP:BEFORE until now explains a lot. It makes me think that I would be able to support a candidacy in the near future, although I would like to see some evidence of applying that first. Rlendog (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Regretfully, per DGG and the follow-up response to Q9. --Randykitty (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: Per DGG's analysis of deleted contributions and a patchy history at AfD, I am uncomfortable granting deletion tools to the candidate, who has specifically stated speedy deletion as an area he wants to work in. Moreover I can't find a CSD log for him, so I have no way to verify his ability or experience in that area. BethNaught (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    @BethNaught: To let you in on a nifty trick... you can use the edit summary tool to effectively find all the speedy deletion requests made with Twinkle, as the edit summaries are consistent. All the speedy deletion requests can be found here, and here would be the requests that were either declined or the page was recreated (as the edit is still live). You could similarly find all the requests made via Page Curation. — MusikAnimal talk 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  6. Oppose In view of this response to Question 8: "If it hurts your ego to occasionally be wrong - you're in the wrong place." The last thing this website needs is an administrator with a snotty attitude and a big mouth. I also share DGG's concerns about a possible itchy trigger finger for deleting articles that meed Wikipedia's editorial standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    AAD, you're welcome to oppose the candidate for whatever reason or no reason at all, but I think you're reading too much into the candidate's statement you quoted above. I didn't read it as a "snotty" comment. I read it as a self-deprecating comment that one has to be willing to accept your own mistakes, and acknowledge them as such. Your interpretation may be different. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Although I am in the same "oppose" section, I agree that you may have misinterpreted the candidate's statement. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Gosh, yes, I also read this comment in a different way. One of the reasons that I support Dogdger67 is that he has shown himself willing to learn from his mistakes. I interpreted his comment to mean that those who can't adjust their thinking when faced with clear contrary evidence will likely find editing here frustrating. Having interacted with a few editors like that, I was nodding my head in agreement. However, I am not a neutral party here.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    I read it like Anne and Dirtlawyer too. To me, it indicates an attitude of learning from mistakes, and of acknowledging them rather than flannelling and obfuscating. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Comment by candidate - Indeed it is not at all aimed at others, it's a recognition and acceptance that I can sometimes be wrong. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  7. Oppose With regret I must agree with DGG's opinion on this matter. I would hesitate to give this user the delete tool given a track record of poor judgment in regards to inclusion/deletion standards. No prejudice against running again after showing a better track record.

    I waited a while before casting this opinion and I did not give it lightly. Chillum 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  8. Very temporary oppose. I stand by what I said in the support section before ("His work at WP:WikiProject Disability has contributed massively to the encyclopedia, and in our brief interaction during the development of its style guide, I found him unfailingly collaborative."), and I admire Roger even more for admitting up front that he hadn't read WP:BEFORE until now. His calm, positive replies to Dirtlawyer1 (in the neutrals) reinforce this feeling. I even have quite a lot of sympathy for his views about cruddy articles. But the received wisdom at AFD is based on consensus, which is the most important thing of all. Before !voting to give a delete button, I'd like to see evidence that Roger now knows how to call it at AFD. When that can be seen, I'll support a future RFA in an instant. --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Neutral Placing myself here pending answer to above question from myself. If the candidate did, in fact, make those articles which were subsequently taken to AFD and deleted - I'll have some obvious concerns with his judgement. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  2. Neutral. For the most part the candidate looks pretty good, but after looking through the articles he created, almost all of them are stubs (or unrated stubby articles) with only a few start-class articles, and, unless I missed something, nothing rated higher than start-class. I would have liked to see at least a couple of better developed articles, say class C or B or higher. The candidate's AfC participation also gives me pause. I view the entire AfC project as a substantial net negative for Wikipedia. In my opinion, AfC is simply unnecessary and creates more problems than it solves. So I view anyone with heavy AfC participation with suspicion. That alone is not enough for me to oppose, but it'd have to be outweighed by some major positives in other areas in order for me to support. Nsk92 (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    @Nsk92:I respect your opinion, and you don't really have to give a reason for your opinion being neutral, but would you mind explaining to me(on my talk page, to avoid threads on a RfA) what you mean by AfC being a "substantial net negative"? Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 22:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    Nsk92 I am also interested in learning why you think all of AFC is a negative to the project, as there are definitely some quirks with the project, but we shouldn't completely throw out tens of thousands of hours of work by both volunteers and editors alike as a negative to the project. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    Neutral for now and I may change this later when I have had an opportunity to do my time-consuming research. (Moved to 'Support') I am reluctant to base support on the main acclaim for work at AfC which is not strictly one of the traditional admin related maintenance areas. IMO in spite of some changes to it (some as a result of my and DGG's initiatives and Anne Delong's hard work) it remains largely IMO a broken process and still appears to be simply a struggle as to whose scripts are the best rather than discussing some real software alternatives; and that's why I have withdrawn from discussions on it. Anyone who could get that initiated and implemented would be worthy of its mention as a feather in their cap for RfA, but not for their routine reviewing - which, as DGG points out in the 'oppose' section, may need some closer scrutiny. Solid work at AfD, NPP, and other areas would demonstrate the skills of judgement and knowledge of guidelines and policies required for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, the answer to question 5 lands me here as I was leaning towards opposing on the face value of the example Axl has shown. I am not unconcerned with question 4 either.—John Cline (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - To the best of my recollection, this is the first and only time I have ever felt compelled to register a "neutral" !vote in an RfA discussion. I do not do so lightly, but for the purpose of offering free advice and constructive criticism to Roger-Dodger67, the candidate. I see much to like about Roger which leads me to believe he will make an excellent administrator in the future: his significant contributions to the project, his editing and writing skills, his generally unflappable personality, and his demonstrated desire to help other editors are all excellent qualities that I want all administrators to have. That having been said, my critical review of his AfD participation (especially his own AfD nominations), as well as several of his AfD-related comments above, lead me to the conclusion that he does not yet have the full depth of understanding of our notability and deletion guidelines, procedures and conventions which I believe all administrators should have, especially if they are going to be active in the deletion of articles and the evaluation of subject notability. My strong concern is not a "fatal" one, but it does prevent me from registering an unqualified "support" !vote for Roger. If, as presently seems likely, this RfA succeeds, I strongly urge Roger to spend significant time reviewing our general notability guidelines, specific notability guidelines, BLP policy, WP:BEFORE, and the AfD, PROD and CSD policies and procedures (many of which are best understood and absorbed by reviewing closely argued AfDs). There are obvious holes in Roger's understanding of these key areas and he needs to fill them before he can become the type of admin I'm sure he aspires to be. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Comment by candidate - I do indeed recognize (after the above analyses of my AfDs) that my own interpretation of Notability does seem to be somewhat stricter or narrower than the generally accepted consensus. Thus it is something I need to be more careful about in future. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for your gracious comment above. I hope you accepted mine in the constructive spirit in which it was intended. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    Comment by candidate - It's all good. In fact even if I don't pass this RfA it has (so far at least) been much more of a learning experience (about myself as an editor as well as various procedures and aspects of WP) than the inquisition I feared. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - Clean block log (trout to Nawlinswiki) and no indications of assholery. Adequate tenure and edit count. Good candidate, in my view. I can't support, however, due to what seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the deletion process, which should start with at least cursory investigation of available sourcing on a topic (as opposed to sources showing in the piece) and some sense of whether a nomination is going to auto-keep due to clearance of a Special Notability Guideline. Yes, people make mistakes with AFD nominations, but just glancing at a couple examples cited by the opposers above, there is enough to give me serious, serious pause about whether this is a person that I want to see with deletion buttons, making the call on A7-SPEEDY nominations, for example. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

About RfB

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

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also change usernames for most users and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages - this is generally not seen as canvassing.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages