Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:52, 25 April 2004 view sourceJohn K (talk \| contribs)Administrators59,942 edits =User:Jor (0/6/0); ends 05:57, 30 April, 2004 (UTC)=← 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}}
	<div style="float:right;border-style:dashed;border-color:blue;border-width:1px;text-align:center;padding:2px;margin:2px;">
			<noinclude>{{pp-protected\|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
	]<br>
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Header}}<!-- ***Do not move this line, as it is not an RfA!*** -->
	]
			{{bots\|allow=ClueBot NG}}<!--

			-->
			== Current nominations for adminship ==
			<div style="text-align: center;">
			Current time is '''{{FULLDATE\|type=wiki}}'''
	</div>		</div>

			----
	{{msg:communitypage}}
			<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">

			'''{{purge\|Purge page cache}} if nominations have not updated.'''
	'''Requests for adminship''' are requests made for a ] to be made an ]. These requests are made via nomination.
			</div>

			<!-- INSTRUCTIONS
	==Important notes==
			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
	Here you can make a '''request for adminship'''. See ] for what this entails and see ] for a list of current admins. See ] for a list of users entrusted to grant sysop rights.

	'''If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.'''

	==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.

	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.

	:'''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.

	:'''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—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.

	:'''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.

	After a minimum 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.

	==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'''.''

	''Please place new nominations at the top.''

	===] (8/0/0) ends 06:10, 2 May 2004 (UTC)===
	Wetman has been around since September 2003 and has about 4,700 edits. He has a done a lot of good work for wikipedia. I think it would be helpful if he had the ability to rollback and block vandals and perform other admin tasks. ] 06:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)<br>
	Okay, I accept. But I'm not a good patient admin type: I secretly disdain certain aspects of "NPOV", ''hate'' the thumbnail format, can't format, can't upload images ]. ] 07:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Support:
	#] 06:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 06:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 06:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 06:16, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
	#SUpport strongly. ]'''] 06:21, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Support strongly, what a contribution to wikipedia 4600+ edits. ] 06:38, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
	#support strongly ] ] 06:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 12:36, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

	===](5/0/0) 04:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)===

	Catbar has been here since December and has made about 800 edits. Solid contributor who deserves admin status. ] 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	:I'm pleased to be nominated - thank you, Meelar. I've found it interesting to work on the Misplaced Pages. I hope I can be a worthy admin. ] 05:32, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

	Support:
	#] 04:48, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 05:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC) I was wondering when we were going to get the all-cat channel on WikiTV.
	#] 05:57, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 06:17, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
	# Support, although 800 edits is a little weak. ] 06:29, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

	Oppose:

	Neutral:

	===] (20/1)===
	I would like to nominate Hcheney for administrator. Not only does he have 1150+ edits since 23 December 2003 and a generally calm and collaborative attitude about his work here, but Hcheney acted very impressively when previously nominated for admin and withdrew his acceptance of the nomination when it became obvious that foul play was occurring (through no fault of Hcheney's). I think that this kind of community-minded behavior is a fine example of what a Misplaced Pages administrator should seek to embody, and I have every confidence that Hcheney will continue to act with this care and integrity in the future. ] 22:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	:Thank you for the nomination. I ask that the voters please consider my merits and faults as an editor and wikipedian. If any editor has questions or concerns, I would gladly address them either on my talk page or by e-mail. --] ] 00:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Support:
	# ]
	# ]. Good editor, and actions of others should not be held against him.
	# Having worked with him, I can say that HCheney is a model contributor. If anyone deserves this, it's him. And I can understand being disillusioned--that was a confusing, frustrating and unpleasant situation for all concerned. However, that was in no way due to HCheney him(?)self. ] 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ] 01:33, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ] 01:41, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	# Support. ] 02:21, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 02:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 03:04, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. Having reviewed a random selection of his edits, I found nothing to complain about and much that was good. A thoughtful and responsible editor. ] 03:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 03:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. ] 13:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] ↕ ] 13:51, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#Support -- ] 13:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Hold up, hold up... You mean he wasn't one already? - ] 14:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# I've disagreed with Hcheney, but I believe he is a conscientious and well-intentioned contributor. ] 14:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 15:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Support: good, responsible editor. ]—]] 17:11, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Support: only seen good things. ] 17:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. Wik's objections are invalid. As much as I dislike Grazingship, Hcheney has nothing to do with that. ]'''] 23:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. ] 05:17, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Oppose:
	# He did not act impressively at all when previously nominated and withdrew his acceptance not "when it became obvious that foul play was occurring" but only in the last moment when it became obvious he would not get a consensus (when the vote stood at 15-9). His "impressive" reaction actually consisted in making a pretense of leaving , which lasted about a week. He also said "The entire RfA process has completely disillusioned me" which is strange - if he wasn't requesting adminship himself, why would he care so much about it? I still suspect that Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are the same person and he cares too much about adminship, much like Alex Plank. --] 23:56, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
	#*Hcheney and GrazingshipIV are not the same person, both the technical and human evidence are quite clear on this. They know each other from high school but now live in different cities. Their IP addresses confirm this story. -- ] 01:40, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#**I also can confirm that Graz and Hcheney are not the same user. Their IPs are quite different. They know each other outside of wikipedia. They are two different people. ] 01:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#***If they know each other from high school, then Hcheney is clearly a liar since he claimed last time that he did not know Grazingship. --] 01:45, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#***Note that the technical evidence only confirms that they live in two different cities, not that they knew each other from outside Misplaced Pages. -- ] 01:50, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

	Comments:
	OK, I want to support, but I also want to know what's behind Wik's statement that Hcheney lied about not knowing Grazingship. I remember the original incident but I wasn't paying all that much attention to it. Can anyone remind me, and confirm/deny what Wik says? ] 02:30, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure where the alleged incident was in which Hcheney denied knowing Grazingship. However, is a discussion of the issue of their relationship, begun by Hcheney. ] 03:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	::That statement could easily be misunderstood to mean that Hcheney denied knowing GrazingshipIV. What it actually says, I believe, is that when Hcheney was contacted by GrazingshipIV, he did not realize that GrazingshipIV was the same person who had introduced him to Misplaced Pages. Keep in mind that when Wik questioned GrazingshipIV as an inexperienced nominator, GrazingshipIV claimed to be a long-time user who had only recently gotten a username. --] 03:16, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	:::If you believe that story that Hcheney presented last time as an obvious last-ditch attempt to secure his nomination, then I would say you've crossed the line from "assuming good faith" into "gullibility". Let's review the facts. Consider this excerpt from the last nomination:
	::::#Oppose - nomination by a 13-day-old user is dubious. --] 20:22, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
	::::#*If it is any consolation I have used Misplaced Pages for years. I would hope you would base your vote on the merit of the candidate rather than myself.-] 20:36, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
	::::#**It just gets more dubious. Used for years and only thought to edit 13 days ago? A likely story. --] 20:43, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
	::::#***No I got a user name 13 days ago.
	:::Now what does the last line from Grazingship there imply? Apparently he's saying that he ''edited'' before but just got a username 13 days previously (as it would indeed be hard to believe that he used Misplaced Pages for years only as a reader, without ever editing). Yet the fact that he made obvious newbie mistakes after "getting his username" strongly suggests that he did ''not'' edit before. When I raised this contradiction he said: "When I said I've been using it for years I DID mean as a reader." One wonders then how to explain his statement "No I got a user name 13 days ago" above. In any case he returns to claim that he did use Misplaced Pages for years as a reader without ever thinking to edit. Not only is that unlikely in itself, it raises the question: how did he get to know Hcheney then? If you just read Misplaced Pages, you don't see usernames. Once you read talk pages, page histories, or Recent Changes, you will of course edit yourself too. When I asked him about this contradiction he did not respond. Now why would Grazingship get into all those contradictions to support Hcheney? If they aren't the same person it is crystal clear to me that this was arranged, not just, as Hcheney claims, as an offer from Grazingship which he was not going to comply with, but an agreement by both sides. Had it worked, Hcheney would have nominated Grazingship later. Hcheney's behaviour is strong evidence for this (his story about Grazingship's emails, combined with messages he left on everyone's talk pages asking to reconsider their votes; and comments like "I do not intend to continue with Misplaced Pages having the status of a joke user." showing his fixation with adminship that would not be explicable if he hadn't expected the nomination, as he originally claimed: "I am flattered that I would be nominated so early"). --] 14:42, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

	::::Why do you think it's unlikely that someone would be a long-term reader of Misplaced Pages without editing? Two people I have met by chance in real life have been overwhelmingly impressed when they hear I am an editor for Misplaced Pages. They are both fans who know all about what Misplaced Pages is and how it works, but just never quite get around to editing. One has plans for things that she "really should contribute when she gets the time". The other thinks it's the best site on the net and spends hours reading it, but he's too intimidated by the whole thing to start editing.

	::::As I said before, Graz got to know Hcheney from outside Misplaced Pages (yes, there is such a place). Graz noticed Hcheney's username while reading, and hatched the adminship plan. He was very keen to support Hcheney because he wanted Hcheney to support him in return. However Hcheney refused. I don't see where the mystery is. -- ] 06:54, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

	:::::I can't make the blind see. But why do you think Hcheney made his statement only in the last moment when his previous nomination was failing? Do you seriously think he received that email from Grazingship just then, and not before? Obviously (considering the campaigning he did on everyone's talk pages, and his complaining about the whole process) it was designed to save the nomination. Why did he suddenly care so much when initially he pretended to be surprised to be nominated "so early"? --] 20:21, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

	===] (15/0) ===

	I want to nominate XJamRastafire. XJamRastafire has been here for a loooooooong time and made many great contributions to Misplaced Pages. Go to his ] for more details. --] 23:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	:Information: 4,942 edits since February 2002. ] 23:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


	Support:

	# ] -- He has worked very hard and made almost 5,000 edits to Misplaced Pages.
	# To have been here that long, with that many contributions, and yet I've never seen him work tells me two things -- one, we must either have different interests or else his edits are minor, and two, he must not get into trouble. And with that many edits without trouble, I can't see not supporting this candidate. ] 23:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#I've certainly seen him around the Wiki. I haven't ever seen him involved in any problems or disputes, so I support. ] 00:02, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 02:43, 2004 Apr 21 (UTC) Funny username.
	#] 08:01, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) (Nohat thinks XJamRastafire is a funny name - Funny!)
	#] ↕ ] 09:23, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 13:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 14:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 18:38, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#Jwrosenzweig says it better than I. ] 02:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Very worthy, support. ] 01:48, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#He is around here for ages; should definitely be an admin. -- ] 13:55, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 03:37, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

	===] (29/0) ===

	I would like to nominate Michael Snow for adminship. He has been involved in discussions about the ] and would benefit from being able to edit that page. He has also been very involved in maintenance of the ] pages and admin access would help him with this as pages that do not meet the guidelines need to be deleted. Michael has made over 2000 edits since December 2003. I believe he has a good understanding of Misplaced Pages and would be a highly trustworthy sysop. ]] 21:35, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

	:That's very kind of you, Angela. I accept the nomination. If anyone has any questions or concerns about my conduct on Misplaced Pages that they would like to discuss before voting, you are welcome to ]. Not just to help you decide whether to support me, but also to help me know what I could do better in the future. --] 21:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Support:
	#]] 21:35, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
	# You're kidding me, he's not an admin? Wholeheartedly support. ] 21:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#He seems quite omnipresent, that is, appears in such a wide variety of topics. Certainly is an asset to Misplaced Pages - ] 22:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 23:08, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Sure. A good guy. ] 23:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:10, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 00:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#I love snow, it's all white and cold and stuff :-P. ] 01:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#Support most violently. -- ] 03:29, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#Agree w Cimon ] ] 04:43, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#I'm shocked and awed that he was not one already. --]
	#Ditto - ] 08:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Ditto - ] ↕ ] 09:25, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 13:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 14:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 15:35, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 16:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) As an added bonus, Michael Snow is a nice person.
	#]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 16:32, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC) Of course!
	#] \| ] 16:53, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 18:19, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC) I have no idea who Michael Snow is by Cimon's testimony makes me heart him. :)
	#Fabulous contributor. Support. ] 20:13, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#Woohoo! -- ] 19:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#He would make a GREAT admin (though he was one). Support strongly! ] 01:16, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 15:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# I thought I already voted yes! --] 18:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Support unreservedly. ] 19:19, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	# Repeat all of above, except Uncle Ed's comment. - ]] 04:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 18:44, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	===] (3/9/9); ends 04:10, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)===

	AndyL's contributions are always scrupulously informed and scholarly. Although he hasn't been a user for a long time, he works on a daily basis and is extremely active, methodical, and efficient. His prodigious (almost two thousand edits in a remarkably short time span) already establishes him among the most valuable WP users in the site's history. He is so productive and such a good task manager on a daily basis that he puts to shame a sizable number of the other academics on this site (and esp. myself, I'll grudgingly admit). ] 04:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	:''I think the nomination is probably premature (though I'm not prepared to say if elected I will not serve:) but thanks to my nominator and thanks to people for the kind comments. ] 00:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)''

	Support:
	#] 04:05, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Support, looks like he knows what he's doing ]
	#] 02:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC).

	Oppose:
	# Although this user has made a lot of contributions, he has only been a logged in user for 18 days. I will definitely consider supporting him for adminship after more time has passed. ] 04:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Agreed with Mirv.....although I might have to wait till 8 weeks on principle. :-) Still, an excellent user with an incredible track record already. ] 15:44, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#*This is taking the fetishization of procedures way too far. Had he made the same number of contributions of the same quality over a period of, say two years, we wouldn't have a single vote in opposition. The short time span of his user history only proves the incredible rate which he's been working. The world's being turned upside down if this is viewed as a reason to hold off on voting for adminship. BTW, AndyL's also proven to be remarkably good at diffusing tensions on WP. On his own, I bet he would be able to prevent dozens of edit wars in the time that other users want to wait before voting to grant admin status. This is clearly an exceptional case and there are compelling pragmatic reasons to disregard how long he's been a logged in user. ] 15:53, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#**172, all I'll say is this. Admins need to prove they can stay out of trouble. Right now, Andy's made so many edits in so little time that I want to wait a bit to make sure I see others react to his edits, and then see how he responds to their reactions. I think he'll respond fine, but I want to wait and see. Now may my vote be considered legitimate? :-) ] 16:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) P.S. What pragmatic reasons, may I ask? I'm very open to hearing and considering them.
	#]]] 16:19, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) - agree with Jwrosenzweig.
	#I agree, its too soon, but please try again after another six weeks. ] 18:49, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Too soon -- will certainly be renominated after a bit. ]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 18:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
	# No way. AndyL completely disrespects my work and I shudder to think of the retribution he would bring down upon me if he was an admin. ] 21:05, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
	##Can we have an example of a conflict between you two to look at please? ] 22:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	###I assume it's a reference to their edit war over ]. ] 22:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	####There are other topics in which TDC has come to blow with Andy, and others, including me. see ], for instance. ] 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#####For the record, TDC's allegations are baseless and absurd. Yes, there have been edit conflicts between TDC and AndyL -- after all, this is Misplaced Pages and everyone is involved in an edit conflict with someone else! Moreover, AndyL's comments have always been well-informed, clear, and patient beyond belief. He has never been abusive or even mildly hostile (e.g. sarcasm, abruptness) to TDC or anyone to my knowledge. There is no reason at all to believe that he would bring down retribution on anywone. TDC's comment perverts the process of selecting admins. ]
	# Andy may become a good candidate, but this nomination is premature. I concur 100% with Jwrosenzweig's comment, above. ] 06:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Rude, assumes bad faith, and appears unable to debate in a polite manner. ] ] 23:51, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Nothing wrong with a little patience. -- ] (])] 18:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	Neutral:
	#]] 13:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) If anyone deserves an early adminship, it's him; however a little bit of seasoning and experience never hurt anybody. I'll be the first to support after another <s>six</s> three weeks or so. ]. Anyone agreeing with me was agreeing with a previous version of this comment] —]] 05:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Agree with Mirv. ] \| ] 16:28, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#What's the hurry? ] 18:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 18:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC) I have to agree with Mirv and Ludraman. But I urge others to keep a sharp eye on AndyL, and make him a sysop as soon as is reasonable -- thus far he has demonstrated an absolute commitment to serious scholarship, clear writing, and congeniality. I am certain that he would make a superb administrator.
	#] 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC). I'd note that while the ] has only been about for 18 days, he posted for an additional 20 days or so as ] before he, by his own account, forgot his password. But still, perhaps, too early - nevertheless, I think he definitely could do the job. ] 04:52, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Has Andy accepted the nomination yet? I hope he requests his old contributions be moved to his new username, for the purposes of future discussions like this. ]] 10:07, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
	#His comments in declining earned him a lot of credit in my book, though. ] 02:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Good user with excellent potential, give it time.] 01:55, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 20:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	===] (17/0/0); ends 21:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)===
	Gentgeen has been around since October and has over 2,000 edits. Gentgeen knows his way around wikipedia and is familiar with the policies and guidelines. He has been involved in maintenance tasks such as reverting vandalism and transwiking pages to more appropriate places; admin abilities will help him do this better. ] 21:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	:Thank you Maximus. I guess I accecpt. ] 19:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Support:
	#] 21:55, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 21:57, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 22:15, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Definitely support. ]
	# Holy crap - he's not one already? Support 100%. ] 23:35, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 03:33, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
	# Absolutely. :-) ] 17:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Yup. ] 18:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# Excellent edit history -- plus I always have an added measure of respect for users who post their real names. ;-) ] 06:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#]]] 17:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] 19:27, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 08:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 13:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 14:45, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 14:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 10:43, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Oppose:


	Neutral:

	==Self nominations for adminship==
	''Please add new requests at the top of this section''

	===] (0/6/0); ends 05:57, 30 April, 2004 (UTC)===

	I would like to request admin status. I've been actively contributing since 17 Dec 2003, and believe that admin status will help me be a better contributor here. I do not expect to get involved in edit wars — if I do (it seems unavoidable as some users will insist on starting one always) I will not abuse admin tools to "win". ]] 05:57, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

	Support:

			Please place new nominations for adminship immediately below the "----" line with the hidden comment, above the most recent nomination.
	Oppose:
			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.
	#Why is everyone pulling aplanks nowadays? Jor's last nomination was removed just 19 days ago when the vote stood at 19-14-2 . Jor is an ugly German-nationalist POV pusher and out-and-out liar (for a good example of this, he put an ''anti-nationalist'' statement on his user page and at the same time is waging edit wars to use German names for Polish cities). It is clear what would happen if he were an admin: he would let Nico do his revisionist edits, and when the edit war is on, he would protect those pages on Nico's version. --] 13:25, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	#:POV objection from '''Wik'''? The Pot really does call the Kettle black] 02:15, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Oppose. Totally concur with Wik's statement above. ] 13:37, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Oppose. His behaviour has even become worse after the last nomination 19 days ago. His claim to be anti-nationalist is ridiculous after adding fuel to the fire all the time. -- ] 13:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#] ↕ ] 13:57, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	# I'd tend to support, but I'm opposing on principle -- one nomination per month is sufficient. As an aside, I hope an ] member will note Wik's comment, above. ] 14:43, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 02:23, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 21:52, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			Example:
	Comments:
			("There are no current nominations" message, hidden if there are open RfAs)
	I am tired of having to see Wik's rants and lies here (172 and Baldhur are Wik-like users and might as well be him, for what I've seen from them). I remind people that last time I was nominated (as in, not self-nominated) I came under attack by a series of sock puppets, who like Wik accuse me of blatant nonsense. (He won't backup his claims with proof because he cannot.) In any case I fail to see where the 'one nomination per month' rule is listed, but if that concerns people I will end this application as it will be unfavourably judged solely because of that. ]] 15:04, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			---- (hidden comment "please leave this horizontal rule and place RfA transclusion below ")
	:As an aside, who is this 'Alex Plank' ("aplanks") Wik continually (I assume unfavourably and in hostility) compares me with? ]] 15:09, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			----
	::He means ], currently known as ], formally known as..., well, lots of things. ]] 15:20, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
	:Just to be clear: I'm not aware of any rule limiting nominations. My comment above reflects my own opinion, nothing more. A vote reflects community consensus, and should carry some weight. I think renomination in less than 30 days is inappropriate. I'm not proposing a rule -- just a guideline. ] 15:32, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			Ready now? Take a deep breath and go!
	===] (8/1/0) (UTC); ends 04:02, 27 April, 2004 (UTC)===
	Hello there, I am nominating myself. I think I have been here for a while, since autumn anyways, and I have god knows how many edits. (just check my user contribs). I've finally stumbled across this page, and I've always wanted to be admin. Mainly because, I feel I can contribute to the main page. Anyways, that's me. I hope that you all accept me! ] 04:02, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			END INSTRUCTIONS -->
	'''Support''':
			{{#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 ==
	# Support - someday we will get all those Ontario communities finished! ] 04:25, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			{{redirect\|WP:RFB\|bot requests\|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests\|help with referencing\|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
	# An ideal nominee, as best I can tell. ] 06:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}
	# Total support. Earl is a great worker. --] ↕ ] 08:44, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
	# Support - I've been very impressed with his work. - ] 00:55, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 02:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#Support: Made a random check of his 2000+ edits, very solid and good work, nice ''stub patrol'' -- ] 15:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 03:37, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
	#Support, although I wish he'd make more use of the edit summary. ] 17:28, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			== Current nominations for bureaucratship ==
	'''Oppose''':
			<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey\|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
	#Not what I would conciter admin material.--] 14:20, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
			---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->
	#* Could you clarify? (User has seven edits.) ] 14:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			== Related pages ==
	'''Comment''':
			* ]
			* ]

			=== For RfX participants ===
	==Requests for bureaucratship==
			* ]
	''Please add new requests at the top of this section''
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

			=== History and statistics ===
	==Other requests==
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			=== Removal of adminship ===
	Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikimedia projects can be made at ].
			* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
			*]
			* ]

			=== Noticeboards ===
	Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta can be made at ].
			* ]
			* ]

			=== Permissions ===
	Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at ] following consensus at ] that the bot may run.
			* Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at ].
			* Requests for other user permissions can be made at ].

			== Footnotes ==
	Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at ].
			{{Reflist}}<noinclude>

			]
	==Possible misuses of administrator powers==
			]
	*]
			]
	*]
			]</noinclude><!--

			Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
	]
			-->
	]
	]
	]

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: 848 (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 16:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page

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

Current time is 16:41, 29 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 16:41:12, 29 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