Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
AirshipJungleman29 20 2 0 91 Open 21:54, 3 October 2024 6 days, 22 hours no report
Current time is 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
AirshipJungleman29 20 2 0 91 Open 21:54, 3 October 2024 6 days, 22 hours no report
Current time is 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), 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.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.

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, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Significa liberdade RfA Successful 21 Sep 2024 163 32 10 84
Asilvering RfA Successful 6 Sep 2024 245 1 0 >99
HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85

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

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an 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.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} 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. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

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 they 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. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !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 (especially to 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). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] 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".[4] 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 or WP:NOTNOW. 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 at WP:Bureaucrats. 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.

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 23:25:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

AirshipJungleman29

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (20/2/0); Scheduled to end 21:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) – Hello there, I'm Airship. I've been editing for a couple of years now. My first love was and remains the improvement of content, and I am inordinately proud of the work I've done bringing several articles up to featured and good status. Apart from that, I have got involved promoting nominations at DYK, playing a large role at WP:GAR, closing discussions, and generally bouncing around the place. I believe that I could be an efficient and useful addition to the admin corps. I have never edited for pay, and I have no alternate accounts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I believe I have the experience and knowledge of Wikipedia to contribute productively in most admin areas. For example, I have greatly enjoyed closing several discussions, but have tended to steer away from more divisive closes because of my non-admin status. I feel that as an admin I could make a real impact at (the perenially-backlogged) WP:CR. Other areas where I have contributed on the non-admin side of things include AFD/CSD nominations and DYK, but I think I can become useful anywhere (as long as no coding is involved).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If I had to pick one, rewriting Genghis Khan into an FA-quality article—it took nearly two years and was a real labour of love. There is also Ai-Khanoum, the first article I took to FAC, which I honestly believe is close to perfect. On a wider scale, most of my content work (eleven featured articles or lists, in addition to eight good articles) has been on woefully undeveloped topics, and to shed some light as I have done is a legacy worth having to me. I am also proud of playing a large role in helping kickstart the previously pretty-much-dormant GAR process last year.
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: Yes, absolutely. One thing I have been chastised for was for being too passive-aggressive in heated discussions. I have since tried to consistently apply WP:COOL when involved in disputes and to always keep this xkcd in mind; I also had two off-wiki encounters which really left me thinking. I now believe that to actively participate in furious arugments is the easy way out, and that it takes real guts to comport yourself with dignity even when those around you are almost setting the air alight with anger. That is the standard I aim to keep to, on-wiki and off.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Clovermoss
4. Given your interest in DYK, is there anything differently you would do in situations like these in the future?
A:

Discussion

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C F A 💬 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Finally 🥳 This has been on my watchlist for awhile. Glad to see it turn blue. Folly Mox (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, I have never had (or seen) this user interacting badly with anyone, and I respect that. SirMemeGod  22:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Hello, based department? Yes, this is that guy I've been telling you about... jp×g🗯️ 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I didn't know they aren't one.--NØ 22:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support plenty of impressive content work and a very pleasant person to interact with. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Oh heck yeah. As much as I resent your inevitable Wikicup victory (/j) this is such a welcome surprise. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support 100%. λ NegativeMP1 22:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely. For those of you in the back, they got Genghis Khan to FA. Kind, competent, just an awesome editor. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. one step closer to reestablishing the Mongol Empire through the medium of wikipedia ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Every interaction I've had with them has left me impressed. Strong content creation, clearly competent, kind. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Great past interactions, will be great for the role. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. AirshipJungleman29 is one of those rare Wikipedians who has that sixth sense for content, and I'm not just talking about the many FAs and GAs that adorn their userpage like a decorated general. I know their work best at DYK, where they are one of the most active promoters of all time, and I can't overstate how impressed I am with their work there. AJ's understanding of how articles are supposed to be structured and written, and determination to make sure others' articles meet that standard, has had significant and measurable positive impacts on DYK and GA. Even when we disagree – especially when we disagree – I've always found them to be reasonable, knowledgeable, and willing to admit mistakes, and they always have the best interests of the project at the heart of their position. Happily offering my strong support! :D theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose as someone who saw the nominee go after so many GAs of roads for iffy reasons. I cannot in good faith support Airship. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU, are you able to provide more evidence of these accusations (links to AN or talk page discussions, reviews, etc.)? Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose It is a hard no from me x 10. I may offer ups some diffs later to show just how snarly and dismissive AirshipJungleman29 has been to me and many other editors. Congrats for the work they do but there is no way they should be an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Neutral


General comments

About RfB

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

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also 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. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1247951677#About_RfB"