Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:25, 4 April 2004 view sourceSverdrup (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,936 edits =Sverdrup; = Ironically, I did just that. (yes, I can only do crappy photos) ~~~~← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024 view source AmandaNP (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,699 edits remove successful RfATag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Process of the Misplaced Pages community}}
{{msg:communitypage}}
<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!***** -->
{{bots|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!--


-->
'''Requests for adminship''' are requests made for a ] to be made an ]. These requests are made via nomination.
== Current nominations for adminship ==
<div style="text-align: center;">
Current time is '''{{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}'''
</div>


----
==Important notes==
<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">
'''Note: A closely related vote is going on at ] - ''' if the vote is approved, the chosen users will share the non-technical responsibilities and authority presently held by Brion Vibber, Tim Starling, and the other developers. Nominate your favorite colleague today, and don't forget to vote!
'''{{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.
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.
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:
'''If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.'''
("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!
==Guidelines==
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.


END INSTRUCTIONS -->
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.
{{#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 ==
:'''Nomination'''. Users can nominate other users for administrator. If you want to nominate another user, please notify them by leaving a message on their talk page in advance, as a courtesy. If the user wishes not to be nominated, please abide by that decision. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
{{redirect|WP:RFB|bot requests|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests|help with referencing|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}


== Current nominations for bureaucratship ==
:'''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). Other users can comment on your request&mdash;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. Please also give some reasons as to why you think you would make a good administrator.
<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->


== Related pages ==
:'''Anonymous users'''. Anonymous users cannot be nominated, nominate others, or support or oppose nominations. The absolute minimum requirement to be involved with adminship matters is to have a username in the system. This requirement has been added to prevent abuses of the system.
* ]
* ]


=== For RfX participants ===
After at least 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 ] and ]. If there is uncertaintly, in the mind of even one bureaucrat, at least one bureaucrat should suggest an extension, so that it is clear that it is the community decision which is being implemented.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience


=== History and statistics ===
==Nominations for adminship==
* ]
''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'''.''
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


=== Removal of adminship ===
''Please place new nominations at the top''
* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
*]
* ]


=== Noticeboards ===
===] (3/0/1) ends 04:37, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)===
* ]
Contributor has been here since early January and has made many substantial contributions. He is already keeping a keen eye out for vandalism and other violations of Misplaced Pages policy. I think he'd make a great admin. ] 04:39, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
* ]


=== Permissions ===
(awaing acceptance of nomination)
* Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at ].
* Requests for other user permissions can be made at ].


== Footnotes ==
'''Support'''
{{Reflist}}<noinclude>
# Support. In my experience with Exploding boy, he has not only shown himself to be a good contributor but quite reasonable as well. ] 04:58, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
#* PS - I still think that if you looked up unintional humor in a dictionary, you'd find of his
# NEWCOMER RIGHTS! - ]] 05:04, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


]
'''Oppose'''
]
]
]</noinclude><!--


Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
'''Neutral'''
-->
#I like Exploding Boy (love his name), but I think he needs to be here for a while more. ] | ] 04:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

===] (22/0/2) ends 17:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)===
Excellent contributor, coolheaded, and active. Would be a valuable addition as a sysop. ] 17:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::Information only -- Sj has 2880+ edits since mid-January. ] 17:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

: Thank you, Alex; it would be an honor. ]] 23:13, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#], of course
#Sj would be a good choice, I believe. And villainous is hard to spell. ;-) ] 17:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 17:50, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 18:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Excellent choice. I had no idea that Sj wasn't an admin already. ] 18:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 19:17, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
# Most definitely. ] | ] 20:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#--]] 20:12, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ]|] 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:07, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
#He wasn't one already? ] 21:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 21:40, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Obviously. ] 21:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ]] 21:59, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:43, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:38, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 10:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Emphatically. (I truly thought he already was one!) ] 07:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ]
# ] 10:16, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#*Note: Zvi's only edits are to this page. ]] 10:39, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
#] 01:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Neutral'''
#Can't spell '']'' right. --] 17:40, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 17:44, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC) A bit too early, seems to be a Wikipediholic though :)





===] (27/7/0) ends 03:55, 3 Apr 2004===

Cecropia has been involved in some hot editing at ] and has stayed cool. He is a constant presence on the talk page, and has been a very useful contributor on this and other topics. Here for 3 months, over 800 edits. ] 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Thank you for nomination, Meelar. I'm honored and pleased and hope the community will agree with you. I am interested in and try to contribute on a range of non-contentious subjects that I believe will add to Misplaced Pages. On subjects where I have a POV I try to see to it that my postings are accurate and document whenever I can. I try to honor those who disagree with me by being straightforward as to where I'm coming from. I suppose, to quote Marlowe's Faust, that "disputing" is one of the pleasures of an intellectual life, but I'm most pleased when we can reach a consensus, as we seem to on the ]. ] 04:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:

# ] 03:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:19, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:18, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 14:20, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 14:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:Since Get-back-world-respect asked me today on my talk page what I thought about Cecropia's nomination, I thought I'd emphasize my support here--since I guess a simple vote isn't enough of an indication for GBWR. I have not had a lot of interaction with C. -- mostly on the Kerry page, and while C and I have disagreed, he was never difficult to work with (in fact rather pleasant actually) and we have always been able to reach a reasonable compromise. ] | ] 14:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#::Ah, GBWR fights the battle on many fronts! ;-) ] 15:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 15:56, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC) We can use people that can keep their heads cool!
# I don't think the guidelines for sysophood are too important. Cecropia is a good example of why you don't need x number of edits to be a sysop. ] | <small>] 19:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 05:56, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 16:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) - He has probably been the most constructive contributor in the (generally well-behaved) discussion over ]. Maintains civility. A pleasure to work with. ] 01:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# If Isomorphic trusts him, I do. ] 14:54, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
# A solid contributor. ] 17:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# I'm seriously missing something here. If there is a negative POV in an article and a user solicits a counter POV, that's supposed to make the article NPOV. That doesn't mean that the user who contributed the counter POV is inherently POV him/herself, it means they're trying to "neutralize" the article. All in all, I've seen nothing but proper civility here at this discussion and feel that Cecropia has handled himself admirably. This is a rare case where I wasn't going to vote but was impressed by the user enough to vote in the positive. ]] 18:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:Hell, no! If there is POV you should edit it, not add more nonsense. We do not need entries that go like "George W. Bush is called a fascist and a warmonger. He is also a very honourable person that was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize." ] 21:58, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 22:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 23:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) &mdash; rather strong support, actually. I've spent some hours to read through ], ], the actual articles, and some more contributions and am truly impressed by the wit and civility.
#] 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
# ] 15:43, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) Cecropia's record speaks for itself. I completely agree with RadicalBender. In the (highly POV) Bush article, Cecropia tried to build consensus and make it NPOV or present balancing views.
# ]|] 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 21:14, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:41, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
# As much as I hate to agree with the two people who appear to be my archenemies, support. A useful editor, and time here is not an issue (Can be applied here?). - ] 20:26, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ]
# Remarkably level-headed and open. As with Dec, 'the perfect temperament' to be an admin. ]]
# ] 16:59, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 19:31, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 03:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
# ] 04:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

* oh yes, he is my master and fully deserves admiralship ] 17:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
**Sockpuppet. That was his first edit. ] 17:53, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
***''Admiralship?'' I'd be willing to start as midshipman. ] 18:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
# Not yet enough experience here, IMHO. This is nothing personal. I will most probably support at a later date. Cecropia is a valued contributor. ] 17:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# This user set his personal support for George W. Bush over the interest of an unbiased community in numerous cases. E.g. he frequently used valuing expressions like "the argument is countered", and even included a lengthy . ] 15:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:I don't know how appropriate it is for Get-back-world-respect to carry his personal feud over to this forum, but I am don't hide my opinions behind bogus justification ("the article is too large") but I see to it that my edits are as accurate and neutral as they can be, I supply respected citations on contentious subjects (including the French-German-Russian issue, where my main source was BBC), and I stand by the integrity of my submissions. I encourage anyone here to judge my work and my justifications in talk before voting for or against me. ] 16:29, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:::Cecropia, feel free to provide any link proving that I tried "to hide my opinions" behind the bogus sole justification "the article is too large" if I should ever be nominated for adminship - although I do not want to be an admin here anyways. In the meantime, you may explain why someone should be an admin here who thinks that a whole paragraph about alleged "French, German, Russian commercial conenction to Saddam's Iraq" is vital to the GWBush entry. ] 23:22, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#::::I was not referring to you personally except to note your carrying over your personal animosity toward to me to this forum, nor will I respond to an attempt to re-fight the war in Iraq here. I am trying to give those reading and voting here my philosophy of editing, and as I said, it will stand or fall on its own. ] 00:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:::::Not trying to re-fight the Iraq war here but on the GWBush entry? Unless you can explain why the paragraph was needed I do not see why you should be granted adminship. ] 14:44, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#::::::Now I'm sad! I thought you supported me. ;-) ] 14:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:::::::Any valuable statements or answers to the question? ] 15:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#::::::::Well then, see talk. ] 17:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# I find it funny how Cecropia is being nominated for "keeping it cool" with the George Bush article, when (s)He has been just as POV as the rest of them (pro-Bush POV). I don't claim to be any better, but at least I don't try to pretend not to have any bias when my edits show completely otherwise. "Supporters of the administration counter...", removal of the accusation that the war broke international law, , etc. Heck, at least I can point to a couple edits that I did that were favorable to Bush. What have you done, at all, that wasn't favorable to Bush? No offense to Cecropia personally - this is an article for which it will be very hard to find anyone who doesn't have a POV. ]
#::Now, in fairness, Rei, I feel I do ''not'' try to hide my POV. The Bush article has been one I've actively worked on partly because it is was so openly hostile to the man while the Kerry article is so warm and fuzzy. As to POV in general, of course editors have a POV; virtually anyone of intellect does (and quite a few of little intellect, unfortunately). It is the ''writing'' where s/he strives to present NPOV. On an article like GWB though, where passions run so strong, I suppose the best we can hope for is balance, rather than strict NPOV. I'm a little disappointed that you've joined in here because I feel that we were able to reach at least a friendly armisitice in out discussions, if not agreement. I am satisfied that Wikipedians are judging me on my merits, but since the only central complaint with me is over the GWB article, can I avoid getting the impression that some feel the qualification for an admin is to assiduously avoid controversal topics? I get the unpleasant feeling from GBWR that he feels that Bush is ''so'' bad that he finds it necessary not only to have him tried for war crimes, but that anyone who supports him in any way should be condemned as well. ] 18:08, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#:The question is not whether Cecropia has a POV. Everyone has one. Nor is the question whether you agree with his POV. It's whether he is respectful and follows the rules while expressing it. From my experience, this is the case. The fact that he hasn't made any anti-Bush edits to the page is meaningless, since we have plenty of users (and even more anons) who will happilly add anything negative about Bush. There's no need for him to add more. ] 18:13, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#::The question is whether one can have an opinion and still edit in a neutral way. In my eyes, Cecropia cannot, two others agree. ] 21:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# Does not follow NPOV. --] 17:55, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
#I have some issues with the various discussions above. I would be more comfortable at a later date when I've seen more. - ] 22:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:39, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose. ] 05:55, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
# It is unclear to me why this person <s>needs</s> would better benefit the community with admin powers. -anthony
:Well, I don't think that he ''needs'' it per se--no one person actually needs admin powers. I just think that both him and the community would benefit from it--Lord knows I couldn't deal with ] without my "rollback" button. ] 18:01, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

==Self nominations for adminship==
''Please add new requests to the top''



===]; (27/0/0) vote ends 13:40, 5 April 2004 ===

Hello, I am the user Sverdrup since mid-october last year. In the wikiworld, I was "brought up" at the swedish site Susning.nu, but I migrated here for the main reasons GFDL, NPOV and sysops. If you look at my edits there are a quite large fraction of them being in the Misplaced Pages namespace and now, I'd like to serve the Wikipedians. ] 13:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
#Son, we'll give you the job if you cut your hair and put on some decent clothes. Just kidding, I wholeheartedly support. ] 13:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#*Ironically, I did just that. ] ] 17:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Excellent work all around. Support. - ] 13:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 14:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 14:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 16:13, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
#Süppørt ;-) ]] 16:14, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# Support -- I've seen good work. ] 16:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ]] 17:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 18:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) Hey, I don't mind the haircut, even if the '60s are over (waaay over). Hey, I was a Beatnik way back when (when the term Hippie still implied jazz musician).
# ] will make a great sysop. ]] 22:32, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
# Support. I'm normally wary of self-nominations, but I think Sverdrup is one of The Overlooked - those so clearly qualified for sysophood that we forget they aren't one already. -- ] | ] 22:53, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 22:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#]] 22:56, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] 00:27, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Support ] 00:27, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 00:58, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
#] 01:02, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#] | ] 03:39, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# 100% support. --] &#8597; ] 17:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Have no problem supporting -- ] | ] 21:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Total support. I'm only sorry that you had to nominate yourself - one of us should have done it. ] 03:30, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
#] 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
# ]|] 20:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 21:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Strange that he wasn't one already. ] 21:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#] 07:51, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Comments'''
#''Oh, ...another hippie!'' --]
#*Like, dude the 60's are back! Can ya dig it? =) --] &#8597; ] 17:47, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
#*Damn commie pinkos... this site is chocked full of 'em. ] 14:55, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

===]; (6/4/0), vote ends 00:29, 5 April 2004 ===

Hello. I would like admin status so that I can quickly revert vandalism. I've been doing that more and more recently and it is becoming a pain. I'm sure you know how to see my work, so I won't comment on it. I dislike conflict and would rather walk-away from a minor dispute rather than enter an edit war. I also am generally annoyed by locked pages, so I won't lock them lightly (but I won't unlock them without reason either). I've witnessed a couple edit wars recently (] and ]), so I have a feel for how those things go. After many years of internet arguing, I think I've learned how to (almost) completely avoid getting agitated over arguments or trolling. I also feel that I am good at finding answers to my questions about Misplaced Pages and I accept criticism from fellow Wikipedians. Finally, as I understand admin'n, this is not a commitment to constantly be involved. Just so you know, I am likely to disappear for months at a time and then reappear and do a barrage of editing for a few months. I hope to have many years of contributions ahead of me, so a few months isn't a big deal. ] 00:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Should I notify my co-authors that I am seeking admin status?

Clarification: I asked about my co-authors only because they are the most familiar with my style of interaction on Misplaced Pages. I understand that sysop powers such as protecting should be used to keep Misplaced Pages working, not make an article "right". ] 21:17, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Support:
#Not a huge contributor, but knows what he's doing and has demonstrated impartiality and calmness in POV disputes. ] 07:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Agreed. - ] 12:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] | ] 16:10, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 01:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. Adam seems to know what he's doing; the fact that he's been with the project for 1-2 years is a plus--] 23:41, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 09:41, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:
#You seem like a good guy, and I like what you said in your nomination. Please renominate yourself (or remind me to nominate you) when you get to 1000 edits or so. 437 just isn't enough for me. ] 00:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#All users should have the ability to revert quickly. ] 00:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#*Err... there is a "rollback" button for admins that facilitates their reverting duties. ] 23:47, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
#I agree with moink and have issues with any request for adminship directed solely at article you edit on. (Else, why the reference to "co-authors" that you are seeking admin status?) - ] 15:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Not enough edits -- ] | ] 21:25, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:
# From his edits, he seems like a solid and cautious contributor that can be trusted not to abuse his power. He also seems a little too new. I'd prefer to wait for a renomination in a few weeks before I support. ] 03:58, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

===] (3/9/3);vote ends 7:00, 4 April 2004===
I've been here for about 6 months and have about 500 edits. I think that's long enough to be trusted. Time here, number of edits, and trustworthiness seem to be the only consideration in sysopping, so let the voting begin! By the way, if changing my signature often will be a problem, please tell me so. I'll (unhappily) stick with signing comments "Calmypal". - ] 19:05, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
* Stats - circa 800 edits, been here since Nov 03. ] | <small>] 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Support:
# A wikipedian who knows how to use the summary box - make him a sysop quick! ] | <small>] 19:25, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#My experience with Calmypal has been very positive. ] 17:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ]] 23:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

# Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at ] (]). ]] 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --] 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
#*Wouldn't it be better to judge users on their contributions to articles rather than what they put on their user pages? ] | ] 20:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#While it's nice to have hyperimaginative folks such as yourself around, and I personally find your antics entertaining, I think boring people tend to make better sysops. ] 19:55, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Not enough experience yet with the community. ] 20:02, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose strongly. After he unilaterially added the USpresidents footer, he re-added it despite having no consensus to do so and commented "As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it". His comments at ] indicate that he is either dumb or trolling. He did after being criticized for signing his name as "wikipedia". ]] 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
# Oppose, due to controversiality reasons indicated below. ] 13:45, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Too eccentric and unpredictable, in my opinion, to make a reliable admin at this time. ]
#Tends to get into the middle of edit wars. Not to mention the ice cream fiasco, and interesting signatures. ]] 21:31, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose. Much too green. ] 00:43, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

#I cannot support the adminship of anyone from Pennsauken that styles himself as a king. I have a weird gut feeling I know you IRL. --] 17:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#Reading all the comments, I can't support yet, but I see he has worked on a goodly number of useful subjects, so I hope he'll buckle down and that we'll see him here again in a few months and will have earned a better opinion. ] 22:54, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
#I am not to sure 6 months seems a little new, i need to look at his contributions--] 02:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comments:


Rebuttals:

''Oppose because of the mess/edit wars that happened at ] (]). ]] 19:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)''

Ah, I knew that would come up. One argument that is now over disqualifies me forever? I'm definitely frustrated by the campaign against the Continental presidents and even the message altogether, but it's no longer a major issue. - ] 19:19, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:You'll notice that I never said that it would disqualify you forever. In my mind, it disqualifies you now, however. I watched the ongoing discussion and I still feel (although, I will say that ] is probably partially at fault) that no one ever worked to resolve that issue and that everyone, you included, were very antagonistic with each other about the whole matter. That concerns me greatly as far as "admin material" goes. ]] 19:48, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

::Yes, I think I was acting just a tad belligerent here right now, too. Sorry. Anyway, the argument is over (?) and I think it's time to move on. - ] 19:52, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

''User says about himself: "He is currently King of the Sovereign Nation of Paxania, a micronation contained within his own home." We don't need more of this type. --] 19:22, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)''

I hope there'll be no more confusion about my country (and its language, currently in development). Anyway, I AM calling myself a king. I AM NOT making a page about my country, mainly because its "permanent population" amounts to one. - ] 19:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:Hey, can we get him to "annex" the Wikimedia servers so that we don't have to worry anymore about whether we violate the laws of other jurisdictions (like copyright)? --] 17:06, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::Clearly, a royal marriage would be required in order to establish diplomatic ties. Am I to understand you've got a comely virgin daughter of suitable age to spare for this purpose? ] 17:28, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
:::It depends on how you define diplomatic ties. If any of those serving on your nation's Supreme Court would happen to have an unmarried daughter of suitable age, please inform me. - ] 21:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
::::I believe that ] have finally find their calling! ] 04:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
:::::I thought of that, but I'd have to divorce and get married at least every four or eight years. Think of the debt! Remember to make your write-in votes for FDR this November, voting U.S. citizens! - ] 22:38, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

''Oppose strongly. After he unilaterially added the USpresidents footer, he re-added it despite having no consensus to do so and commented "As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it". His comments at ] indicate that he is either dumb or trolling. He did after being criticized for signing his name as "wikipedia". ]] 22:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)''

Yes, but as I've said before, that is over. Admit you fanned the flames of hatred! ADMIT IT! Anyway, the name thing was just some random thought when I was thinking of a new name after Jwrosenzweig mentioned that signing things as "Misplaced Pages" might confuse newbies. Furthermore, I saw no reason not to start adding the footer after I made it. I still say you had no right to remove a comment that wasn't even a personal attack! Cheers, ] 01:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

:You'll have to prove that it's over by compromising and trying to discuss things in a contructive manner. Do this over the course of a few weeks and we might support you. My argument was that your actions did not have the backing of community consensus, and by ignoring this argument, I don't see you have changed. The footer was removed once, yet you chose to ignore us and readd it. Your comment on that page produced huge horizontal expansion and was obvious trolling. --]]

::All this, and you continue to come on ''so'' negatively. Talk at ] has died down, and I will reluctantly continue to let it die. That footer was a disputed decision at worst, and I'd like to advise you to judge people for adminship based on whether they can be trusted to use admin powers responsibly. I am able to get into edit wars now, but I recognize other people's right to disagree with my decisions. By that, I mean that I won't protect pages because I think my way's the only way. With all respect perceived by myself to be due, ] 21:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

==Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikipedias==

See ].

==Possible Misuses of Administrator Powers==
*''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
Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators
Bureaucrats
AdE/RfX participants
History & statistics
Useful pages
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 01:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
Current time is 01:18, 26 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
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

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 01:18:44, 26 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

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

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Categories: