Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:55, 24 February 2004 view source172 (talk \| contribs)24,875 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024 view source AmandaNP (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,700 edits remove successful RfATag: Manual revert
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Process of the Misplaced Pages community}}
	]
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	]]
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Header}}<!-- ***Do not move this line, as it is not an RfA!*** -->
	{{msg:communitypage}}
			{{bots\|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!--
	Here you can make a '''request for adminship'''. See ] for what this entails and for a list of current admins.

			-->
	See ] for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.
			== Current nominations for adminship ==
			<div style="text-align: center;">
			Current time is '''{{FULLDATE\|type=wiki}}'''
			</div>

			----
	==Guidelines==
			<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">
	Current Misplaced Pages policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Misplaced Pages contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community. Most users seem to agree that the more administrators there are the better.
			'''{{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/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate

			Please place new nominations for adminship immediately below the "----" line with the hidden comment, above the most recent nomination.
	Wikipedians are more likely to support the candidacy of people who have been logged-on contributors for '''some months''' and contributed to a variety of articles without often getting into conflicts with other users.
			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:
	:'''Nomination'''. Users can nominate other users for administrator. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nor can they nominate others. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system.
			("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!
	:'''Self-nomination'''. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you have been a user for a reasonable period of time - long enough to be regarded as trustworthy (on the order of months). Any user can comment on your request—they might express reservations (because, for example, they suspect you will abuse your new-found powers, or if you've joined very recently), but hopefully they will approve and say lovely things about you.

			END INSTRUCTIONS -->
	After a 7 day period for comments, if there is general agreement that someone who requests adminship should be given it, then a ] will make it so and record that fact at ].
			{{#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 ==
	==Nominations for adminship==
			{{redirect\|WP:RFB\|bot requests\|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests\|help with referencing\|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
	''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 inform them about their listing on this page, and ask them to '''reply here if they accept the nomination'''.''
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}

	~~''Please~~ ~~place new~~ nominations at ~~the~~ ~~top''~~		== Current nominations for bureaucratship ==
			<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey\|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
			---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->

			== Related pages ==
	===]===
			* ]
	Nearly 2000 edits from October 2002. Good entries on European politics and Green issues. -- ] 20:21, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)
			* ]

			=== For RfX participants ===
	*Support. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, Tillwe will be a useful and good admin. ] 20:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Support. Thought he/she already was an admin! --] 20:40, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Support. Agree with Delirium...when I saw "support tillwe" at RC, I thought tillwe was asking to be made bureaucrat! :-) ] 20:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	* Absolutely support. ] 20:51, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	* Sure, he sounds responsible and probably won't go loco like so many others have. --] 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Support. ] 22:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Support ] 23:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

			=== History and statistics ===
	Tally: 7 support, 0 oppose. Ends 20:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

	===]===		=== Removal of adminship ===
			* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
	Hadal has been here since December, 2003 and has about 1,900 contributions. He has made numerous good contributions and has handled himself well with regard to dealing with vandalism and other problems and issues. I think he would make a good admin. ] 05:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			*]
			* ]

			=== Noticeboards ===
	*Count me as neutral. I do think Hadal is a good choice for adminship, but I'm worried about the fact he's been here less than three months. ]] 13:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	*Support. The time period is shortish, but hard to imagine that I would think differently two months for now. ] 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			* ]
	* Support glady. He's very attentive and responsive. This gemmologist will make a friendly admin. --] 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

			=== Permissions ===
			* Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at ].
			* Requests for other user permissions can be made at ].

			== Footnotes ==
	===]===
			{{Reflist}}<noinclude>

			]
	] is a calm, reasonable user (since 2002) diligently working on a contentious set of articles. ] 09:05, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
			]
	* Wow. It's extremely flattering to be nominated admin. Thanks for the wikilove hugs all around. Yeah I do still want to become a sysop. But I've long since realised that I'm not one to win any popularity contents. I won't let that, or the baseless accusations made agaisnt me above (that wont be dignified with a response), bother me or effect my enjoyment of Misplaced Pages. ] 22:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
			]
			]</noinclude><!--

			Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
	Support votes:
			-->
	# Support (implicit). BTW, why wasn't I included in the vote tally until now? It was my nomination! ]
	# Support. ] 14:24, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ] 14:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. Anyone who can stay calm while working on the most inflammatory articles in Misplaced Pages deserves to be a sysop. --]] 17:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ] 00:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. Down with the cabal! ]
	# Tough call. I don't think a persons opinions should be held against him, like they were the last time round, so I would lean towards supporting, <s>but count me as noncommittal for the time being.</s> -- ] 16:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I am wholly unconvinced by the arguments presented against his gaining adminship. Mark me as a support. It would be a boon to have him promoted. -- ] 22:21, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

	Neutral:
	# Based on the opposition BL received the last time he was on this page, I'd like to know whether his reasons for wanting to be a sysop have changed before I vote. See also . ]] 16:01, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
	# (removing my response to Angela in light of BL's newer comments)


	Oppose votes:
	# Oppose. ] 21:42, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose. Angela doesn't trust BL, so i don't trust BL. ] 22:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose for now. I think recruiting a radical "inclusionist" is a bad idea. He votes "keep" even on trash that could qualify for instant deletion. --]] 00:52, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose. Wants to put the project at risk by promoting wholesale copyright infringement . Perhaps he should fork, as he suggested in the post. --] 16:44, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose, for same same reasons as Michael Snow. -- ] 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose. Hasn't met an article, no matter how ridiculous, that he thinks should be kept. ] 05:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose. He takes WP for a joke. Hahaha. --] 09:56, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	# Oppose. --] 14:54, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	Tally: 7 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral. Ends 09:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	===]===

	I hereby nominate RedWolf for adminship. Since his first edit on 26 Oct 2003, he has made over 6000 edits, a significant proportion of which relate to disambiguation. He has authored many new articles and submitted several wonderful pictures. As far as I can tell, he hasn't been involved in any dispute, which seems to be a feat in itself at the moment. RedWolf clearly has a good understanding of Misplaced Pages and I think he will make a fine admin. ] 17:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	:Thank you for the nomination Stewart and I graciously accept said nomination. I'll help out with any administrative type tasks when I can (and time permits) but I understand that adminship does not demand any such tasks be carried out on any regular basis. ] 04:46, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

	* Support. (Based on above, haven't verified... somebody please verify) --] 17:47, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ]
	*<s>I don't know RedWolf, and thus am abstaining -- I do want to ask, though, why Tuf-Kat above doesn't indicate a vote, and why the tally below assumes he supports? I have no agenda in this....I just got confused by it. Thanks in advance, anyone who can explain. :-) ] 17:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)</s> Thanks, Kt, that makes sense. Should have checked the history. Consider me neutral for this vote. ] 17:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support, able to discuss and explain self as well as act. ] 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	Tally: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral -- ends 17:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	===]===
	ChrisO is a good contributor and should be a sysop if he wants. He has shown remarkable patience with difficult users. --] 00:06, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* (Not a vote) - User has been here since October 21 and has 940 edits. ] 00:10, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. Did a complete rewrite of ] that was really needed, and has handled himself well with those that brought it to that state. ] \| ] 00:14, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. Chris appears to have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages and would make a good sysop. ]] 07:39, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. Immense patience shown. ] 07:40, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. A really good contributor and works towards NPOV on controversial articles on central/east european topics. ] 07:51, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support ] 08:22, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support; nothing but net, as far I can see... ] 09:19, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
	* ]
	* Support. I've known Chris O since the early days of the ]. He has treated this infamously controversial subject with honesty and lack of bias, and he has contributed enormously to those subjects here along with many others. --] 20:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. I've seen nothing but good from Mr. O. --]] 21:29, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support, welcome aboard! ] 02:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 04:28, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. He's done a fine and much needed job on the Kosovo related articles, and seems sensible....] 18:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. Primarily because Wik trusts him. --] 19:18, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* (belated) support. ] 10:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) (I should read this page more often)

	Crikey - I wasn't expecting this at all! Thanks for the support, it's genuinely unexpected and I'm glad to have been able to make a contribution. So, ummm... do I get a gold star now or something? :-) -- ] 23:45, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	:No, in 5 more days if there's still a consensus some bureaucrate will make you an admin. --] 19:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	Tally: 14 for, 0 against. (ends 00:06, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

	:I can't make out whether Tuf-Kat's vote is for or against. Anyone care to make a guess? -- ] 09:42, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	==Requests for adminship==
	''Please add new requests to the top''

	===Francs2000===

	(link: ] added by himself \| ])

	*I've been toying with the idea of requesting this for a few weeks now, and have been watching this page to see what goes on. I'm probably a borderline case. I've had this user name for five months and in that time have done almost 3,000 edits, including some disambiguation, fixing double redirects and recently tidying up the votes for deletion page. Before that I was an anonymous user for about five months and did some major editing to ], ] and some other related pages. I would like admin abilities so that I can be involved more. -- ] 11:37, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**For further info the following edits were all mine: , , , , , , , -- ] 14:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	===CdaMVvWgS===

	(link: ] added by himself \| ])

	*I'm interested in becoming administrator because I did many edits when I was logged in and lots of edits when I was logged out (The most articles about ] and ] are created and edited by myself). I think it doesn't matter anybody when I'd be an administrator. When there is someone who agrees with me it would be nice. Greetings. ]

	**Oppose at present; there aren't enough edits under his username to fairly judge. Perhaps he should ]. -- ] 21:49, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Oppose. I'm not convinced CdaMVvWgS knows enough about how Misplaced Pages works to be an admin just yet. ]] 21:58, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose. Only 300 edits since November, and unpronounceable name means I won't be even be able to remember who he is. It's hard enough now to distinguish between 172 and 168. --]
	*At a minimum would have to change username to a recognizable one. (btw, ''I'' have no trouble keeping 172 and 168 apart - 172 reminds me of ]). -- ] 00:39, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

	===waltersimons===

	(link: ] added by ] \| ])

	I know, I know. One should be member of wikipedia for some time, longer than a month. But I use the wikipedia service now already for about two years, I edited so many pages already, and recently I thought, "well, why not become a member, so others can see who this great contributor is".

	So I decided to create an account, but far far too late. Had I created an account two years ago, I'm pretty sure there would be no problem now with becoming admin. I thought, this time I won't make that mistake of applying too late, better apply too early! The worst thing that can happen, is that you decline my request for admin. What will I do then? I'll wait for 6 months or so, make some edits in the mean time, and apply again.

	To tell you the truth, I expect that you decline my request for the time-reason that I am very well aware of. Nobody ever does what I tell them to, I tell my colleagues for 3 months that Clark is the guy to vote for, but what does he do, 2 weeks before super-tuesday? He drops out! I write Clark an email not to skip Iowa, but what does he do? Skips Iowa!

	To regain my self-confidence you can do two things: A Vote for Kerry/Edwards/Kucinich/Sharpton in November, B make me admin!

	Sincerely,

	Walter Simons

	*Oppose. You don't have the edits; and the edits you have don't impress me. Consider that you could also wait to be nominated. ] 13:45, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose for the above reasons. I counted that you had 10 non userpage or talk page edits. Also, you give no reason why you want/need to be an admin. If you made edits prior to creating an account, you might want to get them assigned to your username. I've just put a "welcome" message on your talkpage, it contains some useful links. ] \| ] 14:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Defer. If you have been editing for several years, please indicate which IP addresses (and IP ranges, from early on) that you edited from, so the veracity of this claim can be checked. - ] 14:08, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*No vote from me yet. Mark beat me to it. Walter, compile for us a list of IPs you've worked under. I don't knoe if it will help your case, but it might. ] 19:11, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Conditional support. Please specify the IPs you've worked under, so I can better get a sense of the quality of your work. The 30 edits I see from you give me no reason to distrust you, but you say you have a larger pool by which we can judge your work, thus the reason for the conditional support vote. ] 19:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose. Waltersimons' above comments and his user page are quite politically pointed and border on inflammatory, which leads me to worry that he won't exercize the discretion required of an admin. - ] 22:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose for now. Not enough edits. ]`

	*I don't always have the same IP adress, it is dynamic, I believe. How can I see what IPs I ever had? Walter Simons
	**Well, you should remember which articles you worked on. Go to the pages histories and find the IPs you had...click on them to find their histories. ] 10:55, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose. I think he's just joking. Admins need to know when to be serious. --] 14:30, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Conditional support. I want to see some more of your edits. I don't need to see that many to be convinced, but I do want to get an idea of what kind of Wikipedian you are.
	**--] 18:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	==Requests for bureaucratship==
	''Please add new requests to the top''

	===172===
	I've been a sysop for quite a while too, and an active user since 2002. There ought to be a historian among the bureaucrats, BTW. ] 01:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	===cprompt===
	I've been a sysop here for quite a while, and somewhat recently on the Simple English Misplaced Pages. I believe in the philosophy that being a sysop is "no big deal", and requests should only be denied if the community fears that a user will abuse the few powers given to sysops. I'm not a fan of sysops taking unilateral action, and I do not think that I have ever abused my awesome sysop powers. ] 18:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	*Support ]

	===Pakaran===
	I've been a sysop here for several months, and was one of the bureaucrats on meta for the 20 or so hours when that meant anything. I doubt I'd be promoting that many people with so many users of far greater insomnia abilities beating me to it, but I'd like to request bureaucrat status so that I can help out if it ever becomes necessary. ]] 10:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ] 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ] 22:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	===Optim===
	*I think it may be useful to be able grant adminship in the Greek Misplaced Pages (el:) in the future without bothering a developer. Hopefully I can be more useful as a bureaucrat. ] 04:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Support. But I don't think the English RFA is the right place to be asking. ]] 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	** Support. ] 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


	===Infrogmation===
	I've been a contributor to Misplaced Pages since September of 2002, and was granted admin status (without asking for it first) in February of 2003. I hang around Misplaced Pages a good deal and try to be helpful and useful. I request bureaucrat status. -- ] 17:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	Support
	#]] 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	#Support, fine sir. ] 10:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	#] 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	#] 10:59, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	#] 14:27, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	Tally: 7 support, 0

	===Ed Poor===
	I'd like to be a bureaucrat. I am a developer and used to be just about the only one who did sysop promotion. I think I'm good enough at detecting consensus to be trusted with the "promote" button. --] 18:13, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	*I have to oppose. This user has assumed the worst about me (going so far as to publically suggest I am a banned user) and has variously failed to strike me as someone with an astute appraisel of others. ] 18:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**No, I just suspected you were a "sock puppet". (If you're Jack Lynch, then I'm right.) If I thought you were using a sock puppet to evade a ban, I would have contacted Brion or Tim privately.
	***Actually, you accused me of perhaps being EoT . I notice it is hard to keep track of your mistaken allegations, but this one at least will be mentioned here. Your insinuation that I might utilize a sock puppet is similarilly a poor example of your assesment of charector. The multiple accusations against me have caused me to develop a less than favorable opinion of you (one that incidentilly I am striving to shed, as I '''DO''' see you as a good admin.) I just don't think this is the right timing nor circumstance for a promotion. ] 02:45, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	***Ed, this user was previously ]. He asked to have his username changed, and Tim did so. The confusion results from the fact that Jack/Sam doesn't like other people pointing out that ] is now ], as I'm now doing. - ] 22:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	****Thanks, kinda :p ] 02:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. I think Ed has established a reputation for himself as being very fair. ] 18:21, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
	* Oppose. Just days ago he asked to be desysopped, and I'm still waiting for that. --] 18:22, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
	**Wik, assuming you mean that seriously, I think I should tell you that (as best I can tell) Ed was being sarcastic about the desysopping. ] 23:44, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
	***Probably, but he should have been serious. He violated the rules, and should be temporarily desysopped for it. --] 23:47, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ] 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. Hopefully we will get a chance to elect bureaucrats in future. ] 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. The decisions of a bureaucrat will be transparent anyway -- if they don't promote someone who is obviously supported, there will be unrest. :-) I say that as a general argument: certainly I trust Ed's judgment even if it was not transparent. ] 18:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. Ed is a real good guy and excellent Wikipedian that is able to admit when he is wrong. I don't think that he will promote any users that should not be. --] 23:40, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Comment: as a Developer, I could promote myself with a '''SET user_rights = "bureaucrat"''' query, but I'm not going to do that. I ain't no stinkin' unilateralist, man! I go with the flow, seeking that perfect balance between wave and board so eloquently promoted by my sock puppet, er, alter ego, "Surfer Dude". --] 19:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Refusing to act? Spoken like a true bureaucrat. Refusing to act unilaterally. Spoken like a true Misplaced Pages bureaucrat. Support, and thank you Ed for taking this task on board, alongside the mailing list administration and the tireless article mediation you've done for so well for a long time now. ] ] 14:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Actually, that query would make you '''only''' a bureaucrat, which is probably not what you want. ]] 10:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. --]]
	*Support. ] 01:05, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. I commend Ed for taking the initiative to make bureaucrat status subject to a vote. However, it's a little confusing to see it listed as a request for adminship. We either need a separate section for this, or a separate page. --] 01:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Disagree strongly. As I've said three times in the last hour, Misplaced Pages already has a lot of pages that require maintenence, and the last thing we need is another. There are going to be very, very few requests for beuracratic status, so (for the few we do get) this page would suit us just fine. ] 01:16, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support, of course. ] 02:41, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose, how do we know that if he runs the promomtion query granting him those powers, that he won't abuse his new powers? Perhaps the reason he is asking to be invited to run the query to grant himself the powers is the same reason ]s need to be invited to enter a house (which I however never quite understood)... Ok, just joking. Support. ] ] ] 14:10, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. I really respect Ed for holding some strong, minority points of view without getting in revert wars over them, not to mention for managing to calm down ]. ]] 14:22, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*I would support Ed Poor personally, but since I am a member of the Mediation Committee, count me as neutral. -- ] 14:54, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. -- ] 15:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. -- ] 18:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 20:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	:15 to 2 is a good as you could hope with a group that large. Consensus ≠ unanimous. I say make yourself a bureaucrat. ] 20:20, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

	*Support/Oppose, depending. I'm afraid I agree with some of what Sam/Jack said, that Ed is a hasty and judgmental appraiser of behavior. I also agree that he is good spirited. To the extent people express their feelings clearly, and to the extent the exact degree of concensus necessary for promotion to syshophood is clear, then I trust that Ed knows how to count, is honest, and will respect what he perceives to be the wishes of the community. But I don't consider him either an astute judge of nuances or a master of restraint. I'd like to know better what the job entails before I either support or oppose.]\|] 20:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**Your description of my character is spot-on, Mr. 24x7! I admit to having been hasty, judgmental and no master of restraint. I'm hoping my awareness of these character flaws will enable me to keep them in check. I did list myself at ], in part because I realized I had crossed a line with Wik; I really want this to be a community where we all work together harmoniously. --] 20:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. -- ] 20:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose because of the unilateral ban of Wik less than 7 days before this and the writing above saying he isn't a unilateralist, suggesting a lack of recognition of his own tendency to act in haste. Also because he continues to advocate unilateral banning on the mailing list. Ed, please at least be consistent in your opposition to unilateralism, through your deeds as well as your words in all places, not just this page. Once you are, I'll support this. Until then, I don't think you're recognising how you really act. ] 01:58, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**See --] 20:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support, of course. And this request is really unnecessary. I made myself a bureaucrat as soon as that flag became available. If Ed was previously trusted to make sysops, I don't see why he shouldn't be trusted now. Bureaucrats cannot desysop users, anyway, so the worst "unilateral action" Ed can take is make someone a sysop who shouldn't be. Big whoop.] 02:10, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
	** Yes, it '''is''' a big whoop, especially given the recent troubles Misplaced Pages has had with inappropriate sysop behavior. -- ] 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	** I likewise find such mirthful scoffings at the misconduct of ones peers, and dismisal of the complaints of ones subordinates to be yet another sign of the wiki's rapid decent into oligarchy. ] 20:45, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ]] 08:19, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
	*Although it's not specifically stated, I believe that we should wait the full week for bureaucrat nominations, just as with adminship -- ''especially'' when someone is self-nominated. I oppose until 18:13 UTC on 25 February 2004, at which time my vote becomes support. -- ] 00:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	**It ''is'' specifically stated. 7 days. ] 00:47, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	***It's specifically stated for adminship, not bureaucratship. I'm not trying to cause trouble, but we really should do things properly. My vote was specifically in response to Raul's comment suggesting Ed go ahead and give himself the status before the vote was concluded. The community should probably also vote on Eloquence's bureaucratship. - ] 18:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Oppose, for the same reasons as Sam Spade, Wik and Jamesday; Ed has shown himself to be a hasty judge of character, and has acted without the consensus of the Misplaced Pages. I also have to disagree with Eloquence, in that a rogue Admin can do a lot of damage to Misplaced Pages's content and reputation. The democratic election of admins and bureaucrats on Misplaced Pages is not something to be taken lightly. - ] 19:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Ed and Erik are developers. There is no need to vote on either of them. They can make sysops at will by directly writing the database. All a bureaucrat flag does is enable them to do it through a proper interface rather than having to mess around with memcached as they used to have to do. Opposing it makes no sense. These people already the ability to do these things. What is there to vote on? ]] 21:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
	**I suppose you have to go through all of this paperwork and meaningless arguments to prove that you're up for the "bureaucracy". I suppose my main complaint with this nomination discussion was the quick dismissal of a democratic solution. I agree with you that this discusison is a farce though- I assume that Ed will merely take Eloquence's route out. - ] 22:33, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
	***No, I won't. I'm quite serious about what Jimbo said (and what Wik and others also want): that admins should not be unilateralists. I ''can'' ssh my way into the database and do ''anything'', but I won't. We ALL should follow an orderly, agreed-upon process. --] 13:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support; long-time admin I trust. --] 22:39, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support... ] 04:13, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC) (I changed the tally, is that what I'm supposed to do?)
	*Support. We trust Ed enough to give him access to the code; certainly we can trust him with bureaucrat status. I'm even more convinced of this than I was earlier after reading this discussion. ] 19:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support ] 22:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. If Ed already has access to the database it makes sense to formalise the rights that he already effectively has. He ''could'' create sysops any time he likes (not that I think he has done this) but it can only be a good thing if his sysop-creation rights are exercised in a transparent way. That way we can all keep an eye on what he's up to. ;-) -- ] 09:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support, a formality really. ] 11:01, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. I trust Ed more than any other Wikipedian. --] 18:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Ditto. Support. ] 20:49, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	* Support. ] 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	Tally: 25 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral (When tally ends on 18:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC), Seth's ''oppose'' flips to ''support'')

	===Kingturtle===
	I too would like to be a bureaucrat. I have been an admin for about nine months. Although I have strong (and sometimes unpopular) opinions, I am very careful how I utilize my admin powers; I consider my admin actions fair and in good wiki-spirit. I take my responsibilities as admin very seriously. I live best I can to the parting words of ], and of all the articles I've written I am most proud of ]. ] 04:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 13:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 16:51, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ]] 19:36, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 19:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 22:29, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	*Support ] 22:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 00:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 17:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 10:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*Support. ] 18:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	Tally: 10 support, 0 oppose.
	*Support. ] 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	==Requests for de-bureacratorship==
	===Cimon Avaro===
	I would like asssurances that I will never be made a bureaucrat of any wikipedia. -- ] 20:04, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

	*Oppose. Cimon should become super-bureaucrat overruling all bureaucrats on all Wikimedia projects. ]] 20:43, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	**Thrusting power on those who want it least? That's very American of you Angela. Good work ;) ] 20:45, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
	*From what I've heard from Tim and Brion, this bureaucrat issue may be eliminated in the future. Support Cimon for non-bureaucratship. ] 21:16, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	*WOw WOw WOW ow WYu Must be a Bureauf5at because U cant spell it!! ] </sacrasm> 04:34, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
	*You request will be considered once you've filled out form twenty-seven bee stroke zed in triplicate and file it at the wikipedia ministry of information. ]
	*Oppose -- Cimon cannot shirk his duties. ]
	*Support. Change my mind. I can imagine him being a swing voter. ] 01:55, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
	] 01:48, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

	==De-adminship==
	*''See ] and ]''

Latest revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024

Process of the Misplaced Pages community

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention, Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Misplaced Pages: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.

↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship

v t e Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators	Noticeboard Requests for adminship watch talk talk archives Administrator elections watch talk De-adminship Recall Adminship reform unbundling Successful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Unsuccessful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Resysopped administrators Inactive administrators Former administrators
Bureaucrats	Noticeboard Requests for bureaucratship Bureaucrat discussion Bureaucrat activity Successful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological
AdE/RfX participants	Advice for RfA candidates Guide Miniguide Optional RfA candidate poll RfA nominations Request nom Self-nomination Advice for voters Asking questions Arguments to avoid Debriefs
History & statistics	RFA reform RFA by year RFA by month Desysoppings by month
Useful pages	Searchbox RFX report Logs User rights log Old log Meta log Meta old log AdE category RFA category
Current admin count: 847 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 15 (list all)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 19:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 19:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages 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.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took 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

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	S	O	N	%
Sennecaster	RfA	Successful	25 Dec 2024	230	0	0	100
Hog Farm	RfA	Successful	22 Dec 2024	179	14	12	93
Graham87	RRfA	Withdrawn by candidate	20 Nov 2024	119	145	11	45
Worm That Turned	RfA	Successful	18 Nov 2024	275	5	9	98
Voorts	RfA	Successful	8 Nov 2024	156	15	4	91

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). 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:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages: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. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

For more information, see: Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". 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

WP:MONITOR

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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 19:58:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

There are no current nominations.

About RfB

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

WP:RFB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Misplaced Pages:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Misplaced Pages 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