→Current nominations for adminship: Closed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster as successful Tag: Manual revert |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|Process of the Wikipedia community}} |
|||
{{Shortcut|[[WP:RFA]]}} |
|||
<noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude> |
|||
'''Requests for adminship''' (not to be confused with [[Wikipedia:requests for arbitration|requests for arbitration]] at [[WP:RFAr]]) is a page to nominate yourself or others to become a [[Wikipedia:Administrators|Wikipedia administrator]], also known as "sysop". Admins have access to a few technical features that help with [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia maintenance|Wikipedia maintenance]]. Please see the [[Wikipedia:administrators' reading list|reading list]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide|how-to guide]] before applying here. For current admins, see the [[Wikipedia:list of administrators|list of administrators]]; |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header}}<!-- *****Do not move this line, as it is not an RfA!***** --> |
|||
for users who were recently made administrators, see [[Wikipedia:Recently created admins|recently created admins]]. |
|||
{{bots|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!-- |
|||
--> |
|||
==Rules== |
|||
== Current nominations for adminship == |
|||
Administrator status is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with Wikipedia policies. Administrators have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to higher standards. Because admins have been confirmed by the community as trusted editors, they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia. Therefore they should take care to be courteous, exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with other users. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities before adminship will be granted. Most new administrators have at least three to four months of participation and more than 1000 edits. You can nominate yourself, but the number and quality of your contributions may be scrutinised more closely if you do this so it is advisable to exceed usual expectations before doing so. |
|||
<div style="text-align: center;"> |
|||
Current time is '''{{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}''' |
|||
</div> |
|||
---- |
|||
<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%;"> |
|||
'''{{purge|Purge page cache}} if nominations have not updated.''' |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- INSTRUCTIONS |
|||
New nominations for adminship, whether you are nominating yourself or someone else, are placed below these instructions. Please note that RfA policy states that ALL RfA nominations posted here MUST have candidate acceptance, or the nominations may be removed. Please read the revised directions carefully. Thank you. |
|||
ATTENTION: Your nomination will be considered "malformed" and may be reverted if you do not follow the instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate |
|||
Please place new nominations for adminship immediately below the "----" line with the hidden comment, above the most recent nomination. |
|||
If you wish to nominate someone, get their permission and then give reasons on this page as to why they would make a good administrator. Nominations will remain for seven days so the community can vote and comment on the application. Bureaucrats may choose to extend this where the consensus is unclear. Nominations which are clearly not going to gain sufficient support may be removed earlier to prevent the discussion causing ill feelings, which can make it more difficult for the nominee to seek adminship later. However, keep in mind that most editors don't visit Wikipedia daily, so a reasonable amount of time should be allowed. Some people believe all nominations should be allowed to run their course, and disagree with having them removed early. If your nomination is [[Wikipedia:Recently created admins#Unsupported applications|rejected]], perhaps because you are too new or inexperienced, please wait a reasonable period of time before applying again. |
|||
Please leave the first "----" alone and don't forget to include a new "----" line between the new nomination and the previous one as shown in the example. |
|||
Example: |
|||
Vote in the appropriate lists and optionally add a short comment. '''Don't discuss other people's votes in the vote list itself'''. If you want to comment on other people's votes or comments, please do that in the '''Comments''' section below every nomination. |
|||
("There are no current nominations" message, hidden if there are open RfAs) |
|||
---- (hidden comment "please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below ") |
|||
---- |
|||
Ready now? Take a deep breath and go! |
|||
Please note that anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or vote. |
|||
END INSTRUCTIONS --> |
|||
==Current nominations== |
|||
{{#ifexpr:{{User:Amalthea/RfX/RfA count}}>0||<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>}} |
|||
---- <!--Please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below--> |
|||
---- |
|||
== About RfB == |
|||
''Note: Nominations have to be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, please also leave a message on their talk page and ask them to '''reply here if they accept the nomination'''.'' |
|||
{{redirect|WP:RFB|bot requests|Wikipedia:Bot requests|help with referencing|Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}} |
|||
== Current nominations for bureaucratship == |
|||
<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div> |
|||
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule --> |
|||
== Related pages == |
|||
''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)'' |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs]] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies]] |
|||
* Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard]]. |
|||
* Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval]]. |
|||
* Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case]], but you should read {{Section link|Wikipedia:Administrators|Grievances by users ("administrator abuse")}} and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first. |
|||
** [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]] – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes. |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators/Nominators guide|Nominator's guide]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination]] |
|||
* Requests for other user permissions can be made at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions]]. |
|||
== Footnotes == |
|||
=== [[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee]] (16/0/0) Ends 06:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) === |
|||
{{Reflist}}<noinclude> |
|||
Frazzydee has been an active member of Wikipedia since 7 November 2003. He has made 1,906 edits as of August 22, 2004. I think Frazzydee should become an admin because of his diligence in pursuing candidates for speedy deletion, vandalism and possible copyright violations. He interacts well with other users, and has gotten much praise from other members of the community. Being an admin would speed up Frazzydee's ability to deal with vandalism and candidates for speedy deletion, he has already shown judgment and diligence in pursuing these issues. -[[User:Flockmeal|Flockmeal]] 06:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank-you very much. I gladly accept your nomination. -[[User:Frazzydee|[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee]]|[[User talk:Frazzydee|✎]]]] 06:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::'''''Please note that I do not have 1,906 edits. I have 1,505 edits as of now.''''' -[[User:Frazzydee|[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee]]|[[User talk:Frazzydee|✍]]]] 23:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''Support:''' |
|||
#[[User:Flockmeal|Flockmeal]] 06:36, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#A very mature and responsible editor. Just gave me his advice on adding a new picture to [[Church]], in fact. Strongly support. --[[User:Slowking Man|Slowking Man]] 07:31, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 07:32, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ffirehorse|ffirehorse]] 07:41, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Merovingian|<font color="green">Merovingian]]</font><big>✍</big>[[User talk:Merovingian|<font color="orange">Talk]] 14:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ilyanep| ]] — [[User:Ilyanep|<font color="grey">Ilγαηερ</font>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<font color="#333333">(Tαlκ)''']] 19:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) After seeing your work with speedy delete candidates, I support. |
|||
#[[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 19:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:172|172]] 20:55, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]] | [[User talk:blankfaze|<small>(беседа!)</small>]] 20:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Very responsible editor. Known him since the age of 5. Wholly deserving. [[User:Yelyos|Yelyos]] 20:59, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Lots of good work on reverting vandalism, cleaning up pages. [[User:CryptoDerk|CryptoDerk]] 21:13, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 23:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 00:43, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Pizzahunks|Pizzahunks]] 16:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) I think he would be a great asset to Wikipedia as an admin. He connects well with people and is willing to help. |
|||
#[[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 16:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Oh boy, I was about to nominate him. :) -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}]] 01:33, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category:Requests for adminship| ]] |
|||
'''Oppose:''' |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia adminship|Requests for adminship]] |
|||
[[Category:Non-talk pages with subpages that are automatically signed]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia processes]]</noinclude><!-- |
|||
Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header |
|||
'''Comments:''' |
|||
--> |
|||
:I just took a peek at my contributions list to see how many edits I made, and I realized that a mistake was made. My contributions list shows that I have made '''1492''' edits as of this writing. Of course, I will notify everybody who has voted about this unfortunate error. -[[User:Frazzydee|[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee]]|[[User talk:Frazzydee|✍]]]] 23:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::Keep in mind that you probably have more, due to speedies. [[User:Yelyos|Yelyos]] 23:21, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
=== [[User:Siroxo|Siroxo]] (26/0/0) Ends 20:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) === |
|||
Siroxo has, at this writing, 2347 contributions since 16 May 2004. Siroxo has done some nice work on articles as well as showing interest in a variety of housekeeping and policy issues, so I think he would be a very appropriate choice for adminship. I think he shows good judgment and tries to deal calmly with contentious issues; for example, his suggestions on [[Talk:Affirmative action]] recently helped that often controversial page get unprotected again. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 20:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the vote of confidence, nomination accepted. [[User:Siroxo|{{User:Siroxo/sig}}]] 20:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''Support:''' |
|||
#[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 20:17, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Agreement. [[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 20:25, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Oh yes.--[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus)]] 20:36, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|Брайен]] 20:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Squash|squash]] 22:06, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) Also help voted to support for proposition on template images. Also overall I think would be an very good admin. |
|||
#[[User:Mirv|—No-One]][[User talk:Mirv| ''Jones'']] 22:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 22:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) Another fine nomination of Michael's -- Siroxo is a very good editor, and has the right skills to succeed as an admin. |
|||
# [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 23:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) Definitely! |
|||
#Certainly. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 03:16, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Andrevan|Andre]] 03:34, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) A steady guy who follows his convictions without failing to listen and consider. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 03:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 11:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 13:00, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Very responsible editor. Strong support. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 18:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Noisy|Noisy]] 18:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Support! - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 07:22, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:PFHLai|PFHLai]] 09:42, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ffirehorse|ffirehorse]] 01:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] 09:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC). I didn't vote immediately because I didn't know this user. Now that I've checked him out, I like what I see. He is definitely admin material. |
|||
# [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]] | [[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 13:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) Good work |
|||
#[[User:Merovingian|<font color="green">Merovingian]]</font><big>✍</big>[[User talk:Merovingian|<font color="orange">Talk]] 14:15, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ilyanep| ]] — [[User:Ilyanep|<font color="grey">Ilγαηερ</font>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<font color="#333333">(Tαlκ)''']] 19:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:172|172]] 20:52, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 16:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''Oppose:''' |
|||
'''Comments:''' |
|||
# [[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|Contributions]] |
|||
=== [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] (35/1/1) Ends 05:11, 31 August 2004 (UTC) === |
|||
Rossami has made over 3900 contributions starting 2 Apr 2003. Has shown interest in issues related to adminship, such as deletion policy, and done particularly good work writing up the mechanics of the [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]] (a page Rossami created). In my observation, Rossami consistently tries to remain polite and works to resolve conflict as calmly as possible. I think Rossami has earned our trust and the community would benefit from having this fine contributor as an admin. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
: Thank you for your kind comments. I accept the nomination. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] 15:07, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''Support:''' |
|||
#[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 05:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Cyrius|Cyrius]]|[[User talk:Cyrius|✎]] 05:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#Strong support. Was planning on nominating myself once the stats page showed a few more edits. Clearly understands the deletion policy, and will follow it with a more literal interpretation, instead of the more liberal interpretation of some admins. Also unprovokable, and a firm believer in hearing both sides of an issue before taking a stand. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 11:33, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 12:13, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Merovingian|<font color="green">Merovingian]]</font><big>✍</big>[[User talk:Merovingian|<font color="orange">Talk]] 12:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 13:58, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Andrevan|Andre]] 18:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter | Talk]] 19:00, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Mike Jones|Mike J.]] 21:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#How did we miss this one for so long? [[User:Meelar|[[User:Meelar|Meelar]] [[User talk:Meelar|(talk)]]]] 08:41, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 20:30, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC) (Not a day too early.) |
|||
#Of course. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 20:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 22:10, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 07:11, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#What Meelar said. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 18:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel [[Image:Cubaflag15.gif]]]] 20:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|Брайен]] 20:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:TUF-KAT|Tuf-Kat]] 08:06, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless]] 08:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Pcb21|Pcb21|]] [[User_talk:Pcb21|Pete]] 14:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC). Excellent work on VfD. |
|||
#[[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) Rossami has a laudable and appropriate attention to the fine points of policy. See comments for the reason for my support. |
|||
#[[User:Satori|Satori]] 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Chris 73|Chris 73]] [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 08:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Davidcannon|David Cannon]] 10:27, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC). |
|||
# [[User:Sewing|Sewing]] - [[User talk:Sewing|talk]] 13:50, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC). Mainly because he is playing devil's advocate on VfD these days. |
|||
#Support, based on Rossami's argument for giving articles time to grow on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty]]. [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 07:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ffirehorse|ffirehorse]] 07:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 19:52, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:172|172]] 20:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 21:32, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Chmod007|David Remahl]] 21:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (The token star)]] 23:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:Austin Hair|Austin Hair]] 00:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
# [[User:GeneralPatton|GeneralPatton]] 00:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''Oppose:''' |
|||
#I'm changing my vote. I had initially voted Support, but Rossami's recent contributions to VfD in which he feels that any and all garbage is worth keeping on Wikipedia calls into question his fitness for sysophood. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 19:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
#<s>I have to go in the Oppose section since Rossami has not addressed RickK's comment or the comments of supporters who agree with the sentiment. I'd like to see some explanation. Where are the usual questions asked of the admin candidate? - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 16:51, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)</s> |
|||
'''Neutral''' |
|||
#Currently discussing RickK's original question and my view related to it on [[User talk:Texture|my talk page]]. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>Tεx</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>τ</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>urε</font><!-- TANSTAAFL -->]] 21:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
'''Comments:''' |
|||
*Rick, do you mind citing sources on this? I'd be interested in this as a grounds for a possible vote change if I deem it necessary. [[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 19:16, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*Ditto. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 19:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:The change of vote seems to have been precipitated by a disagreement over [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sty]]. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 20:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't like the decision Rossami has taken but I won't remove my support vote. Checks and balances and somesuch. [[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 20:05, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, I don't agree with Rossami here, but we all make mistakes. I'll keep my support. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|talk]])]] 22:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::I had also been taken aback by Rossami's comments in that VfD discussion, but voted to support anyway. In the balance of things, I think he is and will continue to be a definite asset to the Wikipedia. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 03:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::Every time I have ever been on the other side from Rossami, he has had the law on his side. This is a ''good'' thing. The problem is with the interpretation of law and how narrowly it is done. I never have had an occasion to do anything but respect him. He reasons well and truly. So long as he recognizes that interpretation is involved, that the spirit of the law is to leave room for interpretation, I don't have a problem. I hope his rectitude never leads him to the madness of intolerance or scolding. I feel confident, though, because Rossami does the most important thing an admin can do: '''he listens'''. That's why, even though I had churlish words for him on that VfD, I have no hesitation in supporting him. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:24, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::If the Sty discussion is the evidence, I don't see a problem. He had a well-reasoned and well-presented argument, based on current policy. If the wikigods would only let such civil discourse prevail in every dispute.... [[User:Satori|Satori]] 01:52, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. He has never, ever, ever, been contentious that I've seen. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 23:14, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|||
==Self nominations for [[Wikipedia:Administrators|adminship]]== |
|||
:'''Self-nominators, please review''' the qualifications above. Many editors feel that self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure," have an account name that is ''many'' months old and have ''many'' hundreds of edits. This is not to say that self-nominators are necessarily any less qualified than "sponsored" nominations; however, many editors use their knowledge of the nominator as a "jumping off" point for considering nominees, and it is human nature to be more skeptical of those asking for a position than those being proposed by others. If you self-nominate, a good solid background is therefore very important. |
|||
==Requests for bureaucratship== |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]] are simply users with the ability to make other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. New bureaucrats are recorded at [[Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats]]. |
|||
''Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)'' |
|||
==Other requests== |
|||
*[[m:Requests for permissions|Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects]] |
|||
*[[m:Meta:Requests for adminship|Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta]] |
|||
*Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at [[m:Requests for permissions]]. |
|||
*Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at [[m:Requests for permissions]] following consensus at [[wikipedia talk:bots]] that the bot should be allowed to run. |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Requests for comment]] on [[Wikipedia:possible misuses of sysop rights|possible misuses of sysop rights]] |
|||
[[de:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen]] |
|||
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست‌های مدیر شدن]] |
|||
[[fo:Wikipedia:%C3%81heitan_um_umbo%C3%B0sstj%C3%B3rast%C3%B8%C3%B0u]] |
|||
<!--- This is not a mistake: fr.wikipedia keeps the RfAs on the fr equivalent of the en:Wikipedia:Administrators page ---> |
|||
[[fr:Wikipédia:Administrateur]] |
|||
[[ja:Wikipedia:管理者への立候補]] |
|||
[[simple:Wikipedia:Administrators#Nominations_and_requests_for_adminship]] |
|||
[[sl:Wikipedija:prošnje za administratorstvo]] |
|||
[[sv:Wikipedia:Bega:ran om administrato:rsskap]] |
|||
[[vi:Wikipedia:Nh%E1%BB%AFng ng%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Di mu%E1%BB%91n quy%E1%BB%81n qu%E1%BA%A3n l%C3%BD]] |
Latest revision as of 01:57, 23 June 2024
if nominations haven't updated. |
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
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
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
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
if nominations have not updated.
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
Related pages
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
- Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Nominator's guide
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
Footnotes
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ 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.