Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RFA)

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
DreamRimmer 0 0 0 0 Open 10:02, 4 June 2024 6 days, 20 hours no report
Current time is 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
DreamRimmer 0 0 0 0 Open 10:02, 4 June 2024 6 days, 20 hours no report
Current time is 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page

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. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 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 %
Numberguy6 RfA Closed per WP:SNOW 27 May 2024 5 23 2 18
ToadetteEdit RfA Closed per WP:NOTNOW 30 Apr 2024 0 0 0 0
Sdkb RfA Successful 16 Feb 2024 265 2 0 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

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] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]

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.[4] 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".[5] 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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 13:40:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


DreamRimmer

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 10:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

DreamRimmer (talk · contribs) – Hi colleagues, it is my pleasure to present to you DreamRimmer as a candidate for the mop. DreamRimmer is a prolific editor and contributor on this project. Although their tenure is relatively short, they make up for it with strong and consistent contributions in many areas. As an editor, they had written over 20 articles, with one article having been promoted to GA status. They actively give back by assisting their peers. They have reviewed 6 articles that were nominated for GA status. As a New Page Patroller, they have made thousands of reviews of new articles and 130 draft acceptances. At NPP, they demonstrate their ability to organise and promote activities by being a NPP newsletter writer and an organiser of multiple backlog drives, with the recent backlog drive this May. They have shown their knowledge of our policies and guidelines as a global renamer (reaching out to others for second opinions), and have made at least 200 reports at Usernames for administrator attention. They are active at doing anti-vandalism cleanup, with hundreds of reports made at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Their interactions with other editors on their talk page and elsewhere have thus far been cordial and kind. Lastly, they are a technical contributor, having tweaked userscripts and run bots for NPP. With that, I believe that DreamRimmmer will make a strong addition to the janitorial pool. – robertsky (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I'm honoured to co-nominate DreamRimmer for adminship. In addition to content creation (a GA and quite a few articles for the WIR project), they are active in a number of other areas as well, including NPP, UAA and AIV. What I've noticed is that when they see something that needs to be done (and no one else is doing it), they are ready to step up (e.g. the admin newsletter, and a couple of their bot's tasks). Interactions between them and page creators are amicable from what I've seen, and their generous use of WikiLove is something that more NPP reviewers (including me) should emulate. I fully trust that they will delve into the more obscure areas of admining only after gaining enough knowledge of that particular area. Overall, a great candidate for the mop. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination with thanks to both of the nominators. My only alternative account belongs to my bot, BaranBOT. I have never edited for pay. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:06, 28 May 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: While doing NPP and anti-vandalism work, I often find myself in situations where having admin tools would help me contribute more effectively. I mostly spend my time at UAA and AIV, where I often see these noticeboards backlogged, and editors doing admin work there always need helpful hands. I also spend some time writing the admin newsletter, where I have noticed a decreasing number of admins, which further motivates me to step up. I would like to assist mainly at the UAA and AIV queues and am also interested in PERM requests, so I can help there as well. I sometimes review edit requests and would like to assist with edit requests for admin-protected pages.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I'm most proud of my work at New Pages Patrol, where I have coordinated three backlog drives to reduce the growing backlog of unreviewed articles, and I have helped to review over 1000 articles. In addition, I'm also proud of my content work, where I have created over 20 articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and taken Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit to GA status. I am also very happy with my work distributing barnstars every month to top pending changes reviewers, which encourages editors to spend more time reviewing pending changes. My bot, BaranBOT, performs some important tasks that are very tedious to do manually and saves editors time. I coordinated FEB24 for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, where we successfully cited 14,000 unsourced articles, helping readers verify statements in articles.
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: Because of Wikipedia's collaborative nature, it's impossible to avoid conflicts entirely. I recall a thread where another editor and I disagreed about the notability of an article. I tried to explain my points about why the subject of the article was non-notable, but when we couldn't come to an agreement and the discussion shifted to the notability guidelines and whether to check for notability while reviewing new pages, I didn't feel stressed; rather, I requested a third opinion from an experienced editor. For other discussions, I do the same when I think a third opinion would be helpful. When I run into these types of conflicts in the future, I plan to take a break and spend some time in real life before coming back with a fresh mind, which gives me new energy. I believe polite behavior is also key to reaching mutual decisions and resolving these types of conflicts. Looking back at this conflict, I think I should have acted more politely, as I later learned that one of my replies upset another editor.

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.

Optional questions from Idoghor Melody

4. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?
A: When I was a member of the mentorship program, I assisted new users by answering their questions. I have continued to do so outside of the mentorship program, always trying to help by providing answers in a very simple way. For example, most users ask for help in creating an article, and I redirect them to helpful pages like Help:Your first article while also explaining relevant policies. If an editor is in dispute with another editor, I would try to mediate to find a resolution that satisfies both parties. If this doesn't work, I would direct them to the appropriate dispute resolution venues/avenues, where other experienced editors can offer their opinions. If an editor requests permissions outside of the PERM venue, I will instruct them to make a request at PERM, which is the ideal place for requesting user permissions. In some cases, I would check if the editor meets the criteria and grant them permission. For IPBE requests, I would direct them to the CU team for assistance as they have the technical ability to check IP-related information.
5. Would you block an admin if there's an immediate need to do so, and under what circumstances do you think you'll carry out such a task?
A: Under most normal circumstances, I will not block an admin. If I encounter problematic behavior, I would instead opt to discuss the matter with the administrator involved. If, after discussing the issue, I still believe the action was inappropriate, I would escalate it to various admin action review forums such as the admin noticeboard. The only scenario where I might consider blocking a fellow administrator is if there is suspicion that their account has been compromised. In such a case, if there is any uncertainty about the account's status, I would not take action myself but instead contact the Arbitration Committee to report the situation, allowing them to take appropriate measures such as desysoping. For other circumstances involving an administrator committing a clear violation, such as violating 3RR, engaging in continued wheel warring, or making a gross violation of our no personal attacks guidelines, I would bring in more experienced admins to handle the situation.

Optional question from Folly Mox

6. XTools shows you as being a former admin at awa.wp, with one deletion and one protection in your history there. Can you tell us about your experience at that project?
A:

Optional question from Giraffer

7. An article that you brought to GA status, Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit, is listed as a translation of the same page on the German Wikipedia, and is largely sourced to material written in German. Your userpage babel does not indicate that you understand German, so how did you write the article?
A:

Optional question from RoySmith

8. There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?
A:

Optional question from Spicy

9. I'm looking at sources 2 and 8 in your GA. Source 2 is a collection of letters from the 1800s, published in 1972. This source is cited several times to support statements about a person who lived from 1932 to 2023, including "The marriage ended in divorce in 1973". Source 8 is an article titled "Konventionelle Verfahren zur Wasserstoffherstellung" ("Conventional processes for hydrogen production") in a journal about sustainable energy. It seems exceedingly unlikely that it has anything to do with the claim that In 1988, as part of Emma magazine's PorNO campaign, a legislative proposal aiming to establish a German law against pornography, developed in collaboration with Peschel-Gutzeit, was published; however, it did not get implemented. These sources are not present in the dewiki article, so it would seem that you made the deliberate decision to add them to this biography of a recently deceased person. Can you explain this, please?
A:

Discussion


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

Support
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
  • Very descent AfD participation outcomes, good track record at NPP and UAA. conversations this user has been involved in are pretty descent and polite. Overall, net-positive. I'd definitely support. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Polite, Experienced, I have known him since the beginning of my time on Wikipedia. His participation in AfD is positive, and I haven’t found any problematic issues that would make me oppose him. His contributions to AfCs, NPP, and primarily Indian Cinema articles have made a good impression. GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had nothing but positive interaction with DR. I've seen them take on a active role in helping out with tasks related to coordinating the new page patrol project as well as seen them work on increasingly complex technical tasks. Based on my previous interactions, I'm pretty confident that they are up for the task of becoming a administrator. I'm looking to support this RFA once the voting phase opens up. Sohom (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Bureaucrat note: the intention of this initial discussion period (based on the original RFC and the voluminous ongoing discussions at WT:RFA) is not to indicate pre-votes, but rather to discuss any potential concerns to avoid a "bombshell" suddenly tanking an otherwise potentially successful RfA. General comments indicating support or opposition ideally should be saved for the voting period. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DreamRimmer is a name I see often, and always positively. An excellent candidate for adminship I think! GraziePrego (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a number of positive experiences with DreamRimmer in my time on-wiki and, specifically, in NPP. They show a willingness to learn, they gracefully accept criticism, and they seek help when they feel they are out of their element. These are all great qualities and I've enjoyed watching them grow as a contributor. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the crat note, not sure if I'm allowed to say something to the effect of "hell yeah dude" -- let me know if this is an inappropriate comment. jp×g🗯️ 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my reading of the discussions it is less that people think comments like these are "inappropriate" so much as "unnecessary"; this part of the process should not be a mini-ORCP to pre-gauge the chances of success. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]




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 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.

Related pages

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 initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
  4. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  5. ^ 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.