Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFA)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Open for discussion
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Philafrenzy 16 1 0 94 11:23, 28 August 2018 6 days, 21 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 13:49, 21 August 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 %
Jbhunley RfA No consensus 6 Aug 2018 196 86 10 70
Sro23 RfA Successful 10 Jul 2018 277 4 0 99
TheSandDoctor RfA Successful 16 Jun 2018 163 18 9 90
Pbsouthwood RfA Successful 6 Jun 2018 213 62 12 77
The Diaz RfA WP:NOTNOW 19 May 2018 0 13 2 0
GreenMeansGo RfA Withdrawn 2 May 2018 169 60 8 74
Hoppyh RfA WP:NOTNOW 22 Apr 2018 0 6 3 0

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}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.
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 candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate 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 may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or 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 feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. 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 13:50:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (16/1/0); Scheduled to end 11:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


Philafrenzy (talk · contribs) Philafrenzy is very much a "content creator"; he's started over 4,000 articles, and contributed substantially to the good articles The Indian Antiquary and Pietro Annigoni's portraits of Elizabeth II. He's got a good track record at Articles for deletion and he's a prolific contributor to Did You Know, with over 300 nominations making the main page.

Philafrenzy primarily approached me for adminship because he thinks there are not enough people monitoring and updating the DYK queues, particularly when issues are reported there, or at Main Page errors. Having had a go at doing the work myself, I agree that we need some more admin resource in this area. His work elsewhere gives me full confidence he will be able to use the tools in a responsible manner, and be civil and polite to all. So, let's give him a go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Co-nomination by 78.26

I am very pleased to present for your consideration the candidacy of Philafrenzy for Administrator. Additionally, I am honored that such a candidate has selected me to be one of his nominators. Philafrenzy is one of our most prolific content creators. Since he began contributing regularly in February 2011, he has amassed more that 175,000 edits, of which more than 80% are in the article space. That’s more than 1500 improvements per month to article space alone. More than 4000 new articles are the result of Philafrenzy's endeavors.

Philafrenzy has a long and respectable record at AfD, where his "correct" voting totals more than 85%. It is refreshing that when he does not match consensus there is no particular pattern of "delete" against a "keep" result, or vice versa, showing an independence of thinking which is sometimes lacking in that area.

Philafrenzy is communicative. His page is full of useful discussion with new and experienced editors alike. He is open to suggestions and new ideas, but knows his way around Wikipedia’s labyrinth of guidelines and policies. My personal interactions with him has revealed a character of collegiality, flexibility, thoughtfulness and perseverance.

Philafrenzy has a true need for the additional tools. The areas of WP:DYK and WP:ERRORS are always in need of further administrative attention, and it is here that the candidate wishes to focus his attention in an administrative capacity. Here is no hat collector, it has only been at the repeated (I hope gentle) prodding of several highly experienced editors that Philafrenzy has agreed to proceed with this RfA.

He has the correct temperament. He has more than adequate experience, both in edit count and tenure. He has the WP:CLUE. He is an exemplification of WP:HERE. It is for these reasons I request that Philafrenzy receive your positive consideration as an administrative candidate. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you Ritchie333 and 78.26. I accept. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2018 (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 anticipate working in DYK and ERRORS as I am already quite active at DYK. Both are always crying out for admins to fix problems and there seems to be a shortage so I should be able to help. I also anticipate being more active at AFD but starting with non-controversial closes. I haven't done any non-admin closes as I think all closes should be by admins.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I am mainly a content creator and so would say my 300+ Did You Knows, most of them joint. Working in a team to expand an article from almost nothing to complete enough to appear on the front page is something I enjoy. I have two GAs.
I have created over 4,500 articles that are listed on my user page, mostly on biographical or historical topics. Many of these are stubs but there are plenty of longer ones mixed in. I know not everyone likes lots of stubs and I don't claim that my stub creations are great works, just that every article adds to the richness of the encyclopaedia.
In terms of the wider community I have mentored new users and have done outreach work. I was the organiser and one of the presenters at the event to train new users at the Black Cultural Archives in London and I helped train at events at King’s College London and the British Library. I started the meetups in Oxford, Reading, and Glasgow. I maintain the London meetup page and that's the one I attend now. I have contributed over 10,000 of my own photographs to Commons some of which are in use here.
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: There was a discussion on ANI in 2015 about articles I created for professors of history and the interpretation of WP:PROF. They were criticised for being too short and lacking a strong assertion of notability, which was fair criticism. I have taken that on-board and I don't think I have had any problems in that area since then.
I declined a request for mediation this year as the request came from the PR agent for the article subject and I don't see how they can ever approach mediation in good faith with a neutral point of view. I oppose paid editing.
I have had some AFDs in the last year. Some were for articles that on reflection I shouldn’t have created such as a tax lawyer who was just another lawyer and a vet who was too soon. Others were kept such as British Society for Surgery of the Hand or even found their way on to the main page like Columbine cup. I find the best way to handle them is to expand with plenty of referenced content.
I have had the usual minor disputes about article content but they have all been resolved through discussion. Wikipedia is not a source of stress for me. I have never been blocked.

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 SoWhy
4. Your edit summary usage is below 55%. Can you elaborate why?
Additional question from Nihlus
5. As someone not entirely familiar with the WP:DYK process, can you show where your lack of administrative tools has negatively impacted the DYK process?
Additional question from Fram
6. Considering that you want the mop partly to help at DYK / Errors, where it is especially necessary to be careful with sourcing, correctness, and other policies: you created Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat three days ago. How did you decide that the subject is notable, considering that all sources you give only have a very passing mention of the subject? Additionally, how did you decide that all sources are about the same Robert Kirkpatrick-Howat, and not e.g. his father, who died in 1863, and who may well be the one mentioned in source 1?
Additional question from Nosebagbear
7. Why do you believe that even completely non-controversial, Non-Admin Closes by experienced AfD editors should be prohibited in AfDs, given both that they can't close "delete" and that it would significantly increase admin workload unnecessarily?


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) 11:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support We have talked about this together - net positive for Wikipedia. However, one thing is please try to use edit summaries more often but apart from that, you would be an excellent administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Dedicated at the coalface, + all the boxes ticked, - dramaz = WP:CLUE. Good luck. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support I've met Philafrenzy at the pub before, and he seemed a very nice chap. More importantly, he is experienced, has a clue, content creation aplenty, and the proposed DYK work is certainly needed, particularly when it comes to correcting errors and misleading hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support - Clean block log, adequate tenure, excellent contributions to some art history content, no concerns. Carrite (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support I have known Philafrenzy for several years, mainly through Wikipedia meetups at Oxford, Reading and London (also Wikimania 2014). Always helpful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support Matt14451 (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  8. Suppport Great content creation and seems an obvious net positive. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support - exemplary candidate with a good track record in a diversity of content areas Chetsford (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support - you had me at ERRORS. Fish+Karate 12:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support - Some stunning work, and a great track record. Orphan Wiki 12:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  12. Strong support Great content creator & very level-headed. Johnbod (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support as nom, or course! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support - has clue, has demonstrated that they could use the tools, and they're not a jerk, so I think this would be a net positive. I'm not particularly impressed by the low edit summary percentage, but it's not such a big of a deal for me to oppose.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support, I do not have any worries.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Oppose because of the upload history. Wikipedia values the promotion of free content. We begrudgingly accept images used under a claim of fair use under rare cases, but only when we cannot reasonably expect to obtain a public domain or creative commons one. In the case of someone who was famous in the United States prior to 1978 or who lived in the digital camera age (e.g. File:Michael Peter Kaye.jpg), an effort should be made to obtain a freely licensed image rather than just declaring, "He's dead, Jim, let's upload a photo we found on the internet". An example I use sometimes is Jerry Falwell. After he died, I emailed his ministry and asked if they had a photo they would contribute under the GFDL. They did and we have a professional-quality freely licensed photo of him. But if we just declare he's dead, let's find a photo of him on the internet somewhere, we will NEVER get anything else. If someone was famous in the US prior to 1978 or they were famous in the digital camera age, we really shouldn't be settling for photos used under a claim of fair use because we can "reasonably expect" to receive a free one. You retouched File:Dawson Williams.png, which has the dubious claim of being public domain, "It iwas created before 1928 and is therefore in public domain." Okay, sure. It was published in the British Medical Journal in 1928 and is most likely NOT public domain. You uploaded File:Earnest Elmo Calkins.jpg. In 30 seconds of searching, I found [1], which is from a 1905 publication and clearly public domain. In File:C. Stowe Myers.jpg, you give [2] as the source and say the "Author or Copyright holder" is unknown, but the book says "C. Stowe Myers, ca. 1950s (courtesy Industrial Designers Society of America)". Technically, we don't know that they are the copyright holder, but that's information that you didn't give on the image description page. I see a lot of your uploads where you give the website you found it on as the original publication and original source and say unknown for the author. Maybe for some of them we can't easily figure out what the original source is (unless you were to do something truly unthinkable like asking) but others give a source and adding that source would be better than not having it. --B (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


General comments

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