Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFA)
Jump to: navigation, search
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Open for discussion
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
331dot 100 1 0 99 21:32, 29 March 2018 5 days, 18 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 02:32, 24 March 2018 (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. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

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 affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, deleting pages, and editing elements of the site interface that can appear on every page.

About RfA and its process

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Lourdes2 RfA Successful 26 Feb 2018 207 3 1 99
Uebelhoer RfA WP:SNOW 13 Jan 2018 0 8 0 0
Cameron11598 RfA Withdrawn 2 Jan 2018 20 23 4 47
Harrias2 RfA Successful 31 Dec 2017 110 9 40 92
Muboshgu RfA Successful 29 Dec 2017 193 4 1 98
Power~enwiki RfA Withdrawn 16 Dec 2017 3 21 4 13
Joe Roe RfA Successful 30 Nov 2017 169 2 7 99

The community grants administrator access 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 and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll.
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.
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. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion.
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.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what he or she would do in each of five scenarios). 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. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
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 active 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. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). 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".[1]
A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. 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. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. 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.


  1. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 02:32:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (100/1/0); Scheduled to end 21:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


331dot (talk · contribs) – I've been aware of 331dot for some time through his diligent contributions at the In The News section of the Main Page. His specialist topic is geography and politics in Maine, but his real flair is in the back-door maintenance areas. He's a regular at new pages patrol (a perennially backlogged section), usernames for admin attention and vandalism patrol. He's got a good track record of being civil, polite and helpful, and is a frequent contributor to the Teahouse, as well as fielding replies from new users on his talk page with tact and diplomacy.

Some of you may not be aware of 331dot at all; he doesn't go out of his way to make himself known on the noticeboards and project discussions. I don't think that's a bad thing. I know we like to see candidates we're all friends with and who should have been made an admin years ago; but to be honest, what we really need are good, solid, dependable people who will do the job with a minimum of fuss. And that's why I think 331dot deserves the mop. I hope the project will benefit enormously.

In the interests of full disclosure, 331dot has never used another account and has never edited Wikipedia for pay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


Fellow Wikipedians I would like to take this opportunity to second the nomination of 331dot who is a solid contributor to the project with a tenure of around five years. An examination of their record reveals an above average edit count for RfA candidates (more than 3x what mine was), along with excellent records of participation in all the areas one would typically look for in a prospective sysop including CSD, AfD, UAA, NPP as well as ITN/C. (I would note that we are not exactly drowning in admins who are active in NPP.) His content creation is respectable though it's fair to say that he has been more involved in the behind the scenes work. My personal interactions with this editor have usually been at WP:ITNC where he is a huge asset. In closing I would commend to your consideration that 331dot has the sort of disposition that I like to see in an admin... calm, knowledgeable and articulate, not easily provoked and possessed of plenty of clue. Thank you for taking the time to consider 331dot's request for adminship and I hope you will join me in supporting him. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination and thank both Ritchie333 and Ad Orientem for it, their kind words, and their guidance. I would also like to thank the community for participating here.

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 would work in areas that I work in now; AIV, ITNC(when I haven’t contributed to the discussion), CSD, UAA, NPP, and RPP. I would also be interested in using the administrator ability to view deleted pages to better help new users at the Teahouse.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contribution is adding to coverage of Maine (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. I would say I am most pleased about Sagadahoc Bridge as I had to do some digging to properly source it. I am aware that sort of thing(expanding coverage of a subject or subject area) is what almost everyone is working towards in good faith and I consider that every day in my comments and edits.
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: Like other users, I have not worked on Wikipedia without conflict. A recent one was in November with MPS1992, regarding an issue on the article The Pentecostal Mission. The conversation is still on my user talk page under "November 2017". I've also had my fair share of hostile comments on my user talk page, but I try to keep a cool head with such comments.
In a dispute I work to encourage discussion on the matter, stay focused on any relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep the focus on the content under discussion. If that is not being entirely successful I then disengage for a period instead of adding to the disruption with little to show for it. I've also sought outside assistance such as with page protection, which I did in that case. Everyone here has different views and opinions on just about everything; respect, politeness, and civility are vital towards the work we are all doing and I keep that in mind every day. Staying cool and focusing on the content are vital and those are things I would continue to do.
I'm also not afraid to admit fault and correct a mistake when I make one, such as on the article Les Paul and Mary Ford. I saw a short stub that looked like trivial nonsense and tagged it for deletion. I felt something was wrong, so I checked the history and realized the article had been vandalized. I immediately self-reverted and cleaned things up. I think part of dealing with conflict is preventing it in the first place by admitting to mistakes. This edit was an error and a learning experience.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Alex Shih
4. You have recently ran into a minor argument with The Rambling Man ([1]). In hindsight, would you have approached the situation the same way or differently? Alex Shih (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
A: Thank you for your question. In retrospect, I would not have carried on the conversation on their talk page as much as I did, and apologized before disengaging. (For what it's worth, I do apologize to TRM for giving offense) I might also have given a few hours before making the inquiry in the first place. Both would have been less disruptive. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional question from Amorymeltzer
5. What are your thoughts on Administrator Recall? Is it necessary given our other procedures for removal (e.g., ArbCom, inactivity) or is current community oversight sufficient?
A: Thanks for your question. I have not given administrator recall a great deal of thought. I can say that I have not seen anything to suggest to me that current procedures for dealing with administrator misbehavior are inadequate. In my time around Wikipedia, I have observed cases where an administrator overreached, but was corrected after community members engaged them in discussion. I would hope that would be sufficient in most cases; anything more extreme would probably best be dealt with by ArbCom as is current practice. That said, I'm ambivalent about the need to have an administrator recall process. I wouldn't stand in the way of one if it came about. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional question from Dolotta
6. What do you think your biggest challenge would be as a new admin?
A: Thank you for your question. I think that my biggest challenge would be to keep good faith editors from leaving. For example, a user created an article which was legitimately deleted per policy might get upset, think their work was in vain, and quit. I have seen that often a user will be more upset with the deleting admin than with the person who actually tagged the page for deletion. It would be important for me to be understanding and sympathetic to the user. When appropriate, such as with an A7 or G11 deletion, userfying or emailing the text might help. That can't be done in other cases such as G12 copyvios but giving a good, polite explanation would hopefully clarify the situation for the user involved. It is important to hold on to good faith editors, as that is what Wikipedia runs on. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional questions from User:Anachronist
7. Suppose in WP:RFPP you see a semi-protection request for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you find a slow edit war going on among the handful of edits per day. Not all the edits are warring. There have been more than three reverts by both sides but 3RR doesn't really apply because the reverts span more than 24 hours. The most frequent anonymous IP edits involve an anon attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting, characterizing the anon's contribution as WP:UNDUE-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request. The anon has no talk page contributions, although he has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why?
A: Thank you for your question. As such a question requires a lot of specifics, and I presume that asking for specifics would defeat the purpose of the query, I take liberty in assuming a few, straightforward things – that the established editor hasn't invited the IP to the talk page yet, that the additions are not WP:EXCEPTIONAL in nature (which would require multiple reliable sources than one to support), that there's no other exigent situation involved (e.g. WP:BLP issues), that the article hasn't gone through increasing levels of protections in the past due to the same issues, that the IP or the editor haven't been sanctioned/blocked/warned for this issue in the past and that this is purely the first instance of such a case happening. In such a case, my answer would be quite simple. I'll decline the semi, and rather than leaving a message at RFPP, go to the talk page of the established editor, leave an apology note and explain that I would prefer that the editor start discussions on the talk page of the article inviting the IP and following the steps listed out at WP:DR, rather than reverting or asking for protection. Then I'll go to the IP's talk page, inform them not to revert again as that would be considered disruptive and liable for a block if they don't stop; I'll additionally advise them to immediately join talk page discussions and reach consensus before re-adding the material, and that leaving explanations on edit summaries is great, but not enough at all for reaching consensus. That's the way I would prefer to proceed. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
8. We have four levels of user talk page warnings to apply to vandals, spammers, people who push a non-neutral point of view, people who insist on adding unsourced content, and so on.
a. Would you prefer to see escalation through all four levels before you'd block an editor? Why or why not?
A: Thanks for your questions. I would prefer to see that almost all the time, with only a few exceptions such as egregious WP:BLP violations, long term abusers, and blatantly promotional agendas and names worthy of being reported to UAA. I have run into cases where a user was not even aware that they had a user talk page to receive messages, and it took two or three warnings before they did, if at all. I think in most cases users need a chance. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
b. Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning? Why or why not?
A: I assume your question meant, "Are there cases where you wouldn't block a user who has received a final level-4 warning and again commits the same mistake for which he/she was warned?" I again take liberty to assume that I'm viewing this issue as an independent admin who has landed on the scene for the first time. At Wikipedia, warnings are sometimes not necessarily commensurate to the level of exigency involved. To broaden my argument, a newbie editor making editing tests attempting to add a citation that is wrongly formatted could end up getting multiple warnings from cluebot, from other patrollers, and so on. If it were simply enough that anyone who has received a level-4 warning should be blocked if they commit the mistake again, then we could have left a bot to do the job. The fact that it is us, editors, who take the call, is because each case is dependent upon many variables that cannot be summarized in this query. Whether it's a case of a newbie adding that citation unsuccessfully, or that school editor who received a level-4 warning as their first warning because they tried to change the name of the principal without reliable sources... well, there's nothing laid in stone. Blocking requires dollops of common sense and much experience, which I hope I'll gain slowly and surely. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional questions from Andrew D.
9. I am currently opposing on the grounds that you seem too deletionist. By this, I mean that many/most of your recent actions seem hostile, negative and obstructive. But I notice that, back in 2012, you characterised yourself as inclusionist. Please clarify your position on this issue. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
10. The username 331dot seems like it might mean something but I don't get it. Please explain. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional question from Nick Moyes
11. If you had the ability to introduce any two changes to the way Wikipedia operates, what would those be?
A: Thanks for your question. I think improvements to the notification system would be helpful especially for newer users. As I noted in Question 8, many users don't realize that they have a talk page to receive and post messages and don't know that others are trying to contact them. I don't know specifically what I would do at this time but it would be something to help people feel welcome and assist them in directing their contributions to the right place. Second, I think having threaded discussions much like Facebook or Twitter would be helpful. Something with a more modern GUI but backwards compatible with existing talk pages. I understand that the WMF has made some attempts in this area, but did not get anywhere. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional question from QEDK
12. I think I barely ask questions to candidates and you seem already to be a fitting candidate, but this is just a question I was asked fairly recently so I thought I'd ask a prospective admin candidate on their outlook as well. Consider a group of editors who are observed to be editing as a group, one particular article and the situations are as follows:
  • One of the editors says, "We're part of a firm working on the orders of our employers to improve our article page." No supplementing information except they're editing that company page adding promotional language.
  • One of the editors says, "We've been paid by a firm to bring this article to a proper standard." Only 2 of the 4 editors are declared as paid editors and they're editing the company page but with no editorial mistakes.
  • The editors claim they do not know each other but are adding promo language, and the firm mails OTRS saying someone contacted them to edit the page in exchange for money which they subsequently turned down and kept sending them revisions with puffery to entice them.
How would you deal with each of these scenarios? --QEDK () 14:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
A: Thanks for your question. For the first scenario, I would give all of them a quick spam-4im warning to immediately stop adding promotional language and also tell them to ensure they follow the paid editing disclosure policy (including disclosure requirements, both per paid editing and per WP:COWORKER) and conflict of interest guidelines. I also would strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. Block any who continues promotional edits. Request an SPI to weed out any undisclosed meats.
For the second scenario, I would ask all four of them to follow the paid editing disclosure policy (as above) and conflict of interest guidelines. I would also strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. If they continue editing the article, and the additions are editorially acceptable, use common sense and keep a watch; if they push the editorial envelope on weight, sourcing, etcetera, but not on spam, take them to coin for review by the larger community.
For the third scenario, I would give all of them a quick spam-4im warning to immediately stop adding promotional language and tell them that if they've been paid for their contributions or/and are conflicted in any manner, to ensure they follow the paid editing disclosure policy (as above) and conflict of interest guidelines. I would also strongly suggest to them to stop editing the articles and to list their changes on the talk page for review. I would then block any who continue to make promotional edits. Then I would request an SPI to weed out any undisclosed socks. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Additional question from SarekOfVulcan
13. Which do you prefer, Moxie or coffee milk?
A: Earl Grey tea. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


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

  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support has clue, and not a jerk. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  3. Ayuh No reason to expect tool abuse. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    Perfect answer to question 13, I might add. ~ Amory (utc) 23:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support clearly qualified, we need more admins, per nominators, few RfAs this year, good time of the week, month with a H in etc etc - TNT 21:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support per my usual "appears unlikely to torch the joint" criteria. ♠PMC(talk) 21:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support - looks like a good candidate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support as co-nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support Excellent candidate. Plenty of experience. Good record at AFD, CSD, and PROD. Above all, experience and willingness to work at NPP and ITN where we are not exactly overflowing with admins. I have occasionally run across him in editing and been favorably impressed. Everything suggests he will be a great addition to the admin team. --MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support, no worries. -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support Net positive. Vermont | reply here 21:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support - No issues found. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support UAA activity is excellent, and that page definitely could use more admins. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support Why not? Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support Apt for the job. 331dot has the needed experience and will be positive addition. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Non-withstanding my question above, I have always found 331dot to be nothing but calm, reasonable and productive, having observed their works at the Teahouse and ITN/C. No reason to oppose. Alex Shih (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support A pleasure to work with and will do a fine job.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support: No issues overall. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 22:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support Per Alex Shih. 331dot does excellent work and will be a significant asset. Basically the worst thing I found is being overly inclusive with Ucmate Downloader three months ago; if that's your greatest sin, allow me to be the first to welcome you! Feel free to file this under the already thought you were one (although that's probably just collision with Richie). ~ Amory (utc) 22:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    I'd also like to second MelanieN on the value of having more sysops active at NPP and ITN. ~ Amory (utc) 22:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support I actually know Dot through some AFD discussions on current events. He, unlike many editors, took the time to actually analyze sources for their worth. Reference stacking becomes an issue on these types of AFDs, but Dot demonstrated diligence on a consistent basis.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support. Clearly a qualified candidate. Moriori (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support -- ferret (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support my strongest impression of 331Dot came from this, which happened in spite of this. This exchange was very impressive as well, especially in view of this diff and the "irrelevant personal comments" here. Banedon (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support – great impressions, solid history, confident will make an excellent admin. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support Have been waiting for this. AIRcorn (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support - My interactions with 331dot have been nothing but positive, and I think Wikipedia would benefit greatly with this user having the tools. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support - Great candidate, No issues!, Good luck :) –Davey2010Talk 22:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support - Clear net positive, no concerns. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support A huge amount of cleanup work, a mop probably will help with the scrubbing. Bellezzasolo Discuss 23:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support precious politics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support Top class candidate with top class contributions. Lourdes 00:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support especially given the current shortage. L293D () 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  34. Support No issues with this candidate. To a certain extent, I thought they were one already. --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support Swarm 00:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  36. Support as a net positive. — MRD2014 Talk 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support per above. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support seems to have a good temperament, shows a clue at AfD, and the Maine-related articles show a good understanding of content creation. No reason not to. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support good work at NPP and the Teahouse Mduvekot (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support Contributions and history look good to me. And I can't argue with having another geography editor in the admin corps :) TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation
  42. SupportMBL talk 03:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  43. Support. Why not? Double sharp (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  44. Support - what TonyBallioni and PMC said. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  45. Support - easily. A real asset to the project. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  46. Support Why not? -FASTILY 05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  47. Support - Glrx (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  48. Support Sure, my easiest support of an RfA candidate. You knokw he is a good candidate if I've gotten 2 edit conflicts from people jostling to support him! Zyc1174 chat? what I did 05:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  49. Support Sure. Looks clueful and competent.  Philg88 talk 06:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  50. Support – competent and experienced editor who can be trusted with the tools. No obvious reasons to oppose. LinguistunEinsuno 06:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  51. Support As clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  52. Support without reservations. Good candidate. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  53. Support, conditional on 331dot confirming that he has never edited or created articles for compensation of any kind, as is now required (see Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates) (Ritchie333 mentions this, but I would prefer to see it come from the nominee). 331dot is a good editor who knows what he's doing and will be a valuable addition to the pool of administrators. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  54. Support Yes absolutely. talk to !dave 08:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  55. Support. Seen them around. Have no concerns. The sole oppose is not persuading. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  56. Support has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart and would be a net positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  57. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  58. Support - Nice user. Siddiqsazzad001 (TALK) 09:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  59. Support: qualified, hard-working user; no issues. —AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk
    ) 09:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  60. Support - seems like a good fit. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  61. Support No concerns, and seen them around doing the Good Work with great constancy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  62. Support -looks fine to me. Deb (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  63. Support - honestly, I already thought they were an admin... so yeah. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 13:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  64. Support - No apparent issues. Daask (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  65. Support: We need more admins that are active in WP:NPP. StewdioMACK (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  66. Support - genuine case of "I thought he was one already", seen him around, etc. Best of luck! Patient Zerotalk 13:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  67. Support I am familiar with 331dot from their work at ITN and I am confident they would make a fine admin.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  68. (edit conflict)Support per The Rambling Man above, in light of his recent history with the candidate (see Q4). Miniapolis 13:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  69. Support No qualms, we need more admins and they fit the bill. --QEDK () 14:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  70. Support per nominations and sound answers to the questions. I've noticed 331dot doing good work in various places. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  71. Support - between his stalwart work at ITN and the Teahouse, I had assumed that 331dot was already an admin. Time is absolutely right for his ascension now. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  72. In my experience, I agree with Ad Orientem's nom that 331• is calm, competent, productive, and clueful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  73. Support An asset to the 'pedia and that will increase with the mop and bucket. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  74. Support: Seems like a great candidate. Best of luck! HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  75. Support - great work at Teahouse, echoing many above who think more admins at NPP is a great thing. John from Idegon (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  76. Support per Cordless Larry. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  77. Support. Clueful, rational, helpful to new users. No red flags that I can find. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  78. Support Very helpful to new users. Knows how to disagree without being disagreeable. Know how to apologize or de-escalate when appropriate. Net plus for the project. David in DC (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  79. Support -- The answer to question six is very well reasoned. -- Dolotta (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  80. Support - Excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  81. Support - I thought 331dot was already... well, you know. Kurtis (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  82. Support as per pretty much everyone else above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  83. Steel1943 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  84. Support. No strong reason not to. /Julle (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  85. Support - I've seen 331dot around and have no concerns re the granting of the tools. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  86. Support - Certainly. Good candidate and I haven't found any issues. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  87. Support --Joshualouie711talk 19:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  88. Support without a doubt. Go for it. Yintan  20:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  89. Support Among other virtues, I appreciate the concern for good-faith editor retention expressed in the answer to Q6. Most other errors can be easily rectified; alienated good-faith editors may be gone forever. Good to see in an admin candidate and a good reminder to us all, really. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  90. Support – Certainly a net positive, does a great work assisting new editors at the Teahouse. It seems I was not the only one who thought "wait, isn't he one already?" Face-grin.svgFlyingAce✈hello 21:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  91. Support – should be a net positive with tools. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  92. Stephen 21:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  93. Support I see nothing that would constitute a reason to oppose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  94. Support - no reason not to; well qualified candidate who knows what he's doing, has an impressive record under his belt, and is a definite net positive to the community as a whole. Andrew's oppose du jour is completely unconvincing. 65HCA7 21:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  95. Support Per all above. Aiken D 23:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  96. Support - no objections. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  97. Support, WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  98. Support - while I am not completely satisfied with the answers to questions 7 and 8a, I appreciate the thought that went into the replies. I would prefer also to see less of a preponderance of automated edits in the contributions, but the non-automated edits are significant in number, so that's OK. Knowing that a new admin has a learning curve, I believe this editor will be a good administrator. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  99. Support. I've looked around (user talk page, for example), and I feel like everything checks out. I think that the two nominators explain very well the reasons that I, also, would give as to why this candidacy is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  100. Oppose (jk)Barely makes it onto the top 50 NPPers. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. Oppose Too deletionist. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grenfell Tower. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    discussion moved to talk page Alex Shih (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
General comments
  • Not a formal question, but 20000 deleted edits? Could 331dot or an admin roughly summarize the nature of these edits? (ie. are they CSD, user-space pages, etc.?) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Looking through the last 500 (which takes us to November 2017). The vast majority are NPP style edits (CSD, tweaks to articles that have been nominated for deletion, etc.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, I also notice they’ve reviewed more than 1000 new pages in the last 365 days. Multiple that by five years tenure, you could start to approach a large chunk of 20k ultimately deleted edits (and whew, do I thank them for that service!) Innisfree987 (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Indeed. The only thing I'll add is that frequently a page is tagged for improvement (unreferenced, 3rd party, etc.) and then tagged it for CSD, thus multiplying the (eventual) deleted edits. There are also numerous cases (particularly in October, oddly?) of what seems to be a user removing CSD tags, and 331dot reinstating them; I saw at least three where this happened a half dozen times each. Anyway, NPP is hard. ~ Amory (utc) 22:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Anybody going to ask the well-known UAA question? :P Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 02:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Hopefully not. It's been out of fashion recently. If someone does, I'd hope it would be more focused on approach to UAA in general rather than a long list of names. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Don't tempt me!! Face-grin.svg LinguistunEinsuno 06:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I half-heartedly drafted a joke version for my support, mainly focused on comparing 331dot and Ritchie333, but couldn't make it work without being disruptive. ~ Amory (utc) 11:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello, Cordless Larry. I confirm that I have never edited or created articles for pay or compensation of any kind. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Not that I had any suspicions that you had ever been paid, but I think if we're going to ask for this declaration, it's best for it to come from the candidate's mouth (fingers). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I completely understand. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 331dot I cannot vote support for you twice, but I would really endorse your adminship if you were wise enough to not even entertain answering question 10.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
    That goes for question 9 also, which (based on the talk page discussion) appears to have been added in bad faith. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

About RfB

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 also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers 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 candidate. ~~~~}} 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