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 18:23, 5 June 2004 view sourceAnthony (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,889 edits →[]; (26/2†/14/1); ends 15:25, 6 June 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}}
{{Shortcut|]}}
<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}}<!--


-->
'''''WP:RFA''' does not stand for ].''
== Current nominations for adminship ==
<div style="text-align: center;">
Current time is '''{{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}'''
</div>


----
'''Requests for adminship''' are requests made for a ] to be made an ]. These requests are made via nomination.
<div style="text-align: center; font-size: 85%; color: inherit;">
'''{{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.
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:
("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!
==Important notes==


END INSTRUCTIONS -->
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.
{{#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 ==
'''If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.'''
{{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 ==
==Guidelines==
<div style="text-align: center;">{{grey|'''There are no current nominations.'''}}</div>
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.
---- <!-- Please leave this horizontal rule -->


== Related pages ==
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. It is expected that nominees will have good familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. The quality and quantity of a nominee's work here is also a factor. Many Wikipedians take into account the number of edits a candidate has made, as a rough indication of how active the candidate has been. There are no hard guidelines on this, but most users seem to expect between 500 and 1000 edits before they will seriously consider a nomination.
* ]
* ]


=== For RfX participants ===
Nominations which are obviously unqualified (those with fewer than 100 edits, for example) may be removed before the voting is complete. Past votes shows that the great majority of Wikipedians will not support such nominations, so they have no chance of success. Nominations may also be removed early if the current voting makes it clear that there will be no consensus to grant adminship.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience


=== History and statistics ===
:'''Nomination'''. Most users become administrators by being nominated by another user. Before nominating someone, get permission from them. Your nomination should be indicative that you believe that the user meets the requirements and would be an exemplary administrator. Along with the nomination, please give some reasons as to why you think this editor would make a good administrator.
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


=== Removal of adminship ===
:'''Self-nomination'''. If you wish to become an administrator, you can ask someone to nominate you. Self-nominations are accepted, however. If you want to nominate yourself to become an administrator, it is recommended that you wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure.
* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
*]
* ]


=== Noticeboards ===
:'''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.
* ]
* ]


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


== Footnotes ==
==Nominations for adminship==
{{Reflist}}<noinclude>
''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.''
]
]
]</noinclude><!--


Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header

-->

===]; (34/0/0); ends 19:00 7 June 2004 (UTC)===
I'm nominating Elf. She is a *great* contributor, and I have absolutely no doubts about her ability to use admin powers wisely. She was nominated a little while back, and I (and several others) opposed only on the basis that she was too new and it would set a bad precedent. She's been here since January and has some 3000 contributions to her credit. ] 19:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up that I'm listed here. I gladly accept. Maybe easier to say yes after 4 days of wikifree vacation. :-) ] | ] 19:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''
# ] 19:49, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# I seem to recall supporting her last time. She doesn't seem like she'd abuse her powers, and she's pretty easy to work with. ] 19:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# No more vacations for you. -- ] | ] 19:59, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Glad to see her accept this nomination. --] 20:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#She turned down an earlier nomination because she felt she wasn't ready yet. Glad to see her back. ] | ] 20:09, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 20:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:26, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC) I am unable to refuse anything to elves.
#Support strongly ] 20:30, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:39, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Yay for Elf. ] 21:50, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Ditto. --] &#8597; ] 23:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
# ] | ] 00:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
# ] 02:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] --] ] 02:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. &nbsp;&ndash; ] ] 04:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support ] 20:31, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
# --] 20:38, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) Good contributor
#] 21:06, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 21:12, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 22:07, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#Support - It's the song! ;-) ] 00:33, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 07:55, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I don't often vote here, but will happily make an exception for Elf.
# ] 09:15, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) Yes, Elf can do it.
# Of course. ] 16:45, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Strongly support. ]] 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# I seem to be late to the party - an enthusiastic support for Elf, whose positive demeanor and valuable contributions are an excellent model of Wikipedian behavior. ] 19:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Approve ] ] 03:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support -- ] | ] 05:34, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]] ] 11:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) You are welcome, hoom hum, very welcome. ] and ]s can be friends sometimes!
#*This vote is disputed by HCheney.
#] 17:09, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support strongly. ] 18:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] ]
#Support. ] 18:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

'''Comments'''

===]; (26/2&dagger;/14/1); ends 15:25, 6 June 2004 (UTC)===

I took a look at his user page and noticed that he has been doing a lot of good work on ]- and Foucault-related articles. ] 15:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
:Information: About 1800 edits, here since 18 April 2004. -- ] | ] 15:55, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

:I accept. I am willing to fulfill the responsibilities of adminship, and they are responsibilities I am interested in taking on. However, I am on the new side, and I want to stress that I completely understand anyone who would vote against my nomination on these grounds. ] 19:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


'''Support'''
#] 15:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 15:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 15:44, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#]] 15:58, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 16:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] &#8597; ] 16:52, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Support strongly.] 17:34, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
#Support. &nbsp;&ndash; ] ] 19:37, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] --] ] 22:25, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#] 23:18, May 30, 2004 (UTC)
#]''']''' 02:51, May 31, 2004 (UTC) Normally I'd say wait, but Snowspinner has been a very good contributor since arriving. Support strongly.
#] ''']''' 06:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC). Sure, why not? Especially since he's shown an interest in administrative matters.
#] 13:20, 31 May 2004 (UTC) - Great contributor. Users have been given sysop status in the past for doing less work.
# ] 17:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
# ] 20:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] ]
# ] 02:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)<br>
# --] 18:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Is a serious and dedicated contributor that has the right material for the makings of a great admin.
# ] 20:32, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=blue>'''&ne;'''</font>] 21:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ]] 04:07, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC) For attempting to create "Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Snowspinner". Maybe Snowspinner could do with some more experience, but I take this as a sign to expect only good things.
#]]] 14:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support- highly dedicated to fighting trolls and vandals such as that one below calling him a "lap-dog". - ] ] 16:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support. - ] 16:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Recent actions by Snowspinner and certain other users has caused me to overcome my "too soon" objection. -- ]|] 18:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Support. Snowspinner's contributions have consistently been well written and well thought out, and, generally, has been instrumental in helping to resolve conflicts, especially on contentious issues. -] 20:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''&dagger;Support on July 18, subject to reconsideration'''

# ] | ] 03:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC) Will any negative voters (or positive) join me in this category?
# ] 05:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) Ok. Too soon as of writing, but with continued good work and a longer track record of interacting with other wikipedians looks like a potential good choice.
* No. I use four months, and while I like Snowspinner's work, I am disinclined to make an exception. Four months is not that long. Since part of the purpose of waiting is to offer us greater opportunity to gauge candidates' reaction to the blowing of the wiki-winds, voting "in advance" defeats some of the purpose. ]
**I take this not so much as a "vote in advance" as "expect to support at future date barring unforseen issues" rather than "oppose" which has a different connotation to me. -- ] | ] 13:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''

#] 18:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC). Respectfully oppose. While Snowspinner is a great contributor, this nomination is premature. He has only been here six weeks.
#Too early. ] 18:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# <s>Not even a month and a half yet.</s> ] 18:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#:<s>Forget my original reason to oppose User:Snowspinner for admin. My new reason involves User:Snowspinner's rude and contentious treatment of ] on RfA today. IMHO, Snowspinner bullied Chris, and Snowspinner showed a lack of diplomacy. These are '''''not''''' qualities I look for in an admin. Chris is correct. More than one person told him to re-apply, including myself. ] 01:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)</s> I am impressed with Snow's resolution of this issue. I go back to my original reason for opposition. Just not enough time yet. ] 06:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::I stand by my personal opinion that it was inappropriate for Chris to self-nominate that soon after his previous nomination went down that way, and that it displayed poor judgment. I expressed this view in a negative vote, and was leapt upon by Chris. I think my responses were fair and reasonable. He chose to pursue the matter of why I thought he would not make a good admin. I explained this view when challenged. I'm not sure how, short of having a different opinion on his suitability, I could have handled that differently. <s>And, as a side note, I wish that you would not deliberately vary my user name so as to make a personal attack on me.</s> ] 02:26, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#::Oh please get over it. He is not personally attacking you. You are the one who personally attacked me, as others can see. ]
#:::Where did I personally attack you?
# Far too new, would likely support in future with different nominator. ] ] 22:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#:If you people were employers and you were hiring someone, would you hire the person who got x amount of work done in a year, or the person who got the very same amount of work done in a month? I think that if a user has contributed work worthy of a year or two within a period of only a month or two, the short time span should only be taken as a sign of potential productivity, not potential "inexperience." IMHO, if one were to describe a formula for voting on admin status, I'd favor putting the quality/quantity of a user's contributions on the numerator and consigning the duration of the user's activity to the denominator. BTW, when I nominated Snowspinner, I wasn't aware that he'd not been user for a long time. But I'm only ''more'' impressed with his dedication to Misplaced Pages after having found out that he has done so much in such a short span of time. Perhaps for strategic reasons I should've waited a few more weeks, so I apologize to Snowspinner for my oversight (hence, having been an admin for roughly a year doesn't stop me from making mistakes). But, still, I suggest that you people change your votes. He's just as qualified (if not far more qualified) than the typical user who gets voted in unanimously. ] 02:57, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
#::I think editors are becoming uncomfortable with an ever-shortening timespan for admins. You're making the analogy of employment, I'll make the analogy of romance and marriage. A little more time to know who you're dealing with gives you a comfort level for a longer-term commitment. May I propose this: when we get a user like Snowspinner and some others, who many feel would be well-qualified but is just kind of new, maybe we should simply suspend the nomination and revive it when the user reaches three months, rather than be forced to make a positive or negative judgment when it is simply too early. To that end, since this is supposed to be process of consensus rather than numerical voting, I'm casting a vote for suspension below. -- ] | ] 03:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
#:::I think this is, in general, a fabulous idea, though I worry about it being hell for people trying to sort out what nominations to bring back when - unless we just have a "Cold storage" section or something. That said, I also think delaying could easily be achieved through a neutral or negative vote at the time of the premature nomination, and then a renomination yourself on July 18th. ] 03:40, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
#::::My main concept is that an '''Oppose''' because of a simple time issue is not the same as an '''Oppose''' because you feel someone is unqualified, and I don't want an excellent editor like yourself to go away feeling "opposed" as it were, when some of us just want to adhere to a minimal standard. I feel it creates an unnecessary situation which might be embarassing to some nominees. -- ] | ] 03:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
#:::::If this is a localized point instead of a general one, go ahead and oppose - as I said accepting it, I know this is an early nomination, and that those are controversial. (And I've opposed people on the grounds of being too early before. I've also voted for early admin status for people before. It really depends on the person for me.) That said, I suspect you're making a more general point in this case. :) ] 04:05, May 31, 2004 (UTC)
#::::::I suspect you've got it! :) -- ] | ] 04:07, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
# Far, far too new. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this user been involved in conflicts with other users? ] 06:27, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
#:I think that you're wrong. I don't think that this user has been involved in any major conflicts. I've probably had the strongest disagreement with him so far, and I'm the one nominating him. It was a more or less amicable disagreement. ] 06:46, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:I can't think of any substantial conflicts that weren't amicably resolved through discussion... maybe with ]? In either case, yes, I've entered a number of user conflicts, and been vocal in them. Generally, these have been conflicts I've found through RfC, or simply by watching RC. I have not been shy about adding my voice to debates. I have also behaved civily in those debates, respected Misplaced Pages policy, and sought consensus. So, yes, I've gotten into conflicts. But I would hope that staying out of conflicts is not a requirement for adminship - indeed, I think going into them and trying to seek consensus is a plus, not a minus. ] 13:16, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
#::I think you will find that is an uncommon opinion. ] ] 13:54, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:::Then I'm uncertain what RfC is supposed to be for. ] 14:15, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
#Just a wee bit too new. Sorry, Snowspinner.-- ] | ] 16:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Oppose. The user has not been here long enough and is not up on all the rules or past events. ]
#Way too new. -- ] 18:33, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Not yet, but in another few weeks, I think so. ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 20:25, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Oppose. Don't like at all how he behaved in the edit wars on ] and his precious Critical Theory article series box. Maybe in a year or so, but right now, not even close to the stuff admins should be made of. -- ] 05:01, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:The edit war in question was me stepping into an existing mess involving AlexR and Sam Spade. I attempted to negotiate a compromise position. In this case, the attempts at compromise pleased no one, and I will readily agree that, on the whole, ] has been the article in which my edits have been the least successful. As for the ASB, it was hardly precious, and I point out that I've been doing heavy work on deleting it from articles and replacing it with the category system today, and intend to finish the job up tomorrow. My purpose was always to make information available - there's finally a better system in place than ASBs, and I've been swift to adopt it. ] 05:15, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#::I would mention that while this was probably Snowspin's lowpoint on the wikipedia, anyone who reviews it would see that it in no way displayed anything which should exclude him from adminship, particularly since he was so new to the wiki at that time. ] ] 20:55, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::What I said was by no means only about his first edits there. The very same picture continues until yesterday, where he insisted on installing categories about a field he knows, by his own admission, little, to get a link removed from the article he does not like. And I spent a good time to clean up after him, because at least one category was so inapropriatley named it bordered on insult. Sorry, but this is not how admins should behave. -- ] 13:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:::As I've said before, feel free to review the edit history on ], and to read the talk archives. It's the worst work I've done on Misplaced Pages. I don't think it violates rules, and I don't think it displays bad judgment. I think it's a textbook example of a bad situation, where the options were to leave an article that needs serious work alone, or to get into a tense situation. I picked the latter. If I could go back, I'd pick the former, because the article is still in need of serious work, but now I have an ulcer. ] 15:58, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
#:::: This claim is ridiculous. Snowspinner dropped into the article only ''hours'' after ''several'' edit wars had come to a temporary stand. Obviously the article was not in best shape, which article is after an edit war? Also, these edit wars were by no means only between Sam Spade and me. Snowspinner did some minor clean-ups, and that was that, and the last few edit wars were between Sam Spade and him. So sorry, but this is disinformation he is providing here. -- ] 20:02, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Just as we have a 90-day requirement before one can vote in the current election it seems sensible to retain a 'qualification' period for holding any other position such as admin. One needs that full 90 days of history to base a decision upon. --] 17:01, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# Not willing to listen to the other users. Does not understand word consensus - ''general or widespread agreement among'' '''all''' ''the members of a group'' --] 18:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#No, ], ] and ] work way too close I worry about these users getting together as Sysops, makes me wonder who is cabal that they often cite. ] ''']''' 03:23, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#: is probably of interest to people regarding this vote. ] 06:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
# I have now reviewed this user's edits, and find his behavior on ] problematic. ]] ] 10:44, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#*This vote is disputed by HCheney.

'''Neutral'''

#]] 22:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC) While 172's motives in making this nomination are suspect, Snowspinner is clearly an excellent choice. However, I do share the broader concerns about this being way too soon. So, neither support or oppose for now.
#] 13:17, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) Snowspinner a perfectly reasonable comment by his opponent in a discussion (using a dubious edit description), clearly that person's will. I'd be quite concerned about someone who acts like that getting administrator privileges. However, I appreciate that he has done a tremendous amount of productive work here, and that incident occurred shortly after he joined WP - so, time preventing me from getting a more complete picture (on how he has acted in conflicts since then), I abstain from voting ''Oppose''.
#:This was less an attempt at censorship and more an instance of outright carelessness - I'd meant to move the comment to ] (Since it was a comment on that article, and not on ], removed the comment, and then apparently got distracted and forgot to ever put it into the other article. Based on the time of day, I probably had just set my lunch on fire or something. I apologize for this. ] 14:28, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

'''Discussion'''

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind objecting to a nomination due to the nominator. ] 22:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

::Has anyone done so? If you're referring to my comment, that is quite a misreading. ]] 07:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:::Sam Spade noted the nominator as one of his reasons for opposing - your comment was not the one I was referring to. :) ] 15:41, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

:Since a nominator has the permission of the nominee, it is incumbent upon the nominee to show judgement in refusing any nominations that are inappropriate. There have been some recent examples involving a user with a pattern of making nominations of users who were not suitable candidates. I consider 172 a user in good standing, however, and only oppose ''this'' nomination based on the ] I try to follow when voting here. ] 02:49, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

After considering the ChrisDJackson incident, I decided to examine Snowspinner's record a little bit. Snowspinner first edited this page (RfA) on April 18, also the day of Snowspinner's first edit. Considering I had a three month gap between when I first edited (December 23) and when I first edited RfA (March 2), I found it very strange that a new user would be interested in this page on his/her first day. --] ] 02:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:The edit was a non-voting edit in the process of discussing UninvitedCompany's nomination. There was some discussion over the fact that UninvitedCompany had previously used a different account. Someone mentioned a "reason for concern that they didn't feel comfortable going into." Another person asked what this reason was. I speculated that it was the use of a different account that had been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion. As for why I was on the page so early in my Wikilife, it's linked to off of Community Portal, and I was on Community Portal because it seemed like a very sensible page for a user to hit on his first day. I saw the link to RfA, I followed it out of curiosity, I saw the discussion, I attempted to clarify. There's really nothing sinister at all about it. (In fact, it's possible that the edit in question wasn't even originally made under my name - my April 18th edits were, I believe, all IP edits that I had assigned to my username later on.) ] 03:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

::Thanks for explaining that. My support for you stands. --] ] 03:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner is a dedicated and serious contributor that I feel needs to be rewarded for all his great work, making him an admin will show him as a great example as well as give him and others further impulse to improve and enrich Wiki. --] 18:24, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

# ] this guy's 172's lapdog please vote no; they should both be banned
#:I would like to note that the userpage of this user clearly indicates that it is a sockpuppet account. ] 04:05, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
#:Moved from oppose. ]] 04:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:Could this be the persistent anti-Snowspinner vandal? ]] 04:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#::Very possibly. See for an accounting of what's been going on with this and some other IPs/usernames. Short form: it's very likely a sockpuppet of Plato/ComradeNick. ] 06:13, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
#:::I've heard people suggest ] myself (IP reasons) but that's secondhand (and this is thirdhand, heh) - ] ] 03:45, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No vote yet. Why is the dagger for June 18th? I thought that the recommended period was 3 months, not 2 months. - ] ] 20:46, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
:It's not. I think you're misreading. It's for July 18th. :) ] 21:36, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
::No wonder I failed 1st grade... - ] ] 21:42, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

==Self nominations for adminship==

:'''Self-nominators, please review''' the qualifications above. Self-nominees should "exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure." To be considered seriously you should have an account name that is ''many'' months old. Most voters will want to see ''many'' hundreds of edits. Anything less will be regarded as '''obviously unqualified.'''

===] (18/0/0) 17:54, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC) ===

I would like to apply to be an Administrator again. ] 17:54, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Support'''

#] 18:13, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) Unless he was forcibly removed as an administrator, or something along those lines, I see no reason why a former administrator shouldn't be allowed to return.
#Support. ] 19:18, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support (again). -- ] | ] 19:36, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) -- add just a comment. When he first looked for reinstatement, I asked whether a vote was really necessary. I still wonder why, since his temporary de-sysoping was voluntary at his request.
#] --] ] 20:23, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Support. ] 20:25, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] 20:37, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 20:58, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Yep. ] 21:04, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)
#Absolutely. Welcome back in advance ;-) ]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 21:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 13:44, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] ] 14:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) I'm not really sure this should be necessary tho, he was already voted in
# Not necessary at all. Admins in good standing who voluntarilly gave up their status should be able to return without a vote. Oh, and he's a good contributor, by the way. ] 16:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# As there was no reason for him to lose it in the first place, I see no reason he should not have his adminship back. ]] 17:11, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#] &#8597; ] 20:10, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
#I thought he already was one. Oh wait, he was :). ] ]
# Definitely. -- ] | ] 05:20, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#Why not? - ] ] 16:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# ] 10:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''

*What were the circumstances that led to you losing administrator status? - ]]] 18:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**This diff from March 23 shows PMA requesting voluntarily to be de-sysopped. As an editor on semi-vacation currently, I understand completely his weariness, and applaud his desire to take up "active duty" once again. ] 19:19, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

===] (0/4/1) ends 23:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)===

I am doing geometry part of wikipedia and I need bit more rights due to the categorization.

'''Support'''

# Tosha is a ''very'' high quality contributor. I think any negative experiences mentioned below should be taken in the light of the fact that he is not a native English speaker, and had early difficulties in understanding the system, and being understood. I have worked quite close to his area of differential geometry, and can honestly say we are lucky to have him writing for Misplaced Pages, given his level of expertise. ] 20:39, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:This may sound callous of me, but I think that people with difficulties working in English, although often invaluable contributors, shouldn't be sysops. Administrative decisions all too often require grasps of nuance, sarcasm, and things that get lost in translation. ] 23:03, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''
# Have had nothing but negative experiences with this user. From my experience, he seemed very disinclined to cooperate with other editors. In articles he edits, it is his way or else. -- ] 03:16, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>] 12:14, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#]]] 18:21, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) - The request shows a lack of understanding of what the role entails.
#]|] -- Looking at his edit history, his conflict policy seems to be "revert first, maybe ask questions later".

'''Neutral'''
# ] 23:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
# A quick check showed good contributions, could not find negative experience (but did not check extensively, so I probably just missed it). Yet, why does S/he need admin rights for categories? -- ] | ] 05:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
#:Possibly ]? The ability to delete orphaned categories ''is'' useful. ]] 15:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Comments'''
* You don't explicitly need "rights" to make or change things wrt categories. ] 05:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**I'm inclined to agree. His reason for requesting it is dubious at best. ] 05:55, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

===]; ends 07:47, 12 June 2004 (UTC)===

I've been here for some time - less than some, more than others - and think that becoming an admin is a proper step towards illumination. If voted an admin, I promise to do very little harm, and to revert for fun no more than half the number of articles I revert due to vandalism. -- ] 07:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'''Suport'''
* Support. Itai has made over 2200 edits since the start of December and seems to have a good understanding of Misplaced Pages. ]] 10:51, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Support - A brief glance through the user's history shows nothing but good edits. ] 10:56, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
* ] --] ] 15:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''
*] ] Oppose temporarily with a request to clarify what it means "to revert for fun no more than half the number of articles I revert due to vandalism." Is that a joke or something?

==Requests for bureaucratship==
''Please add new requests at the top of this section''

==Other requests==
*Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on other Wikimedia projects can be made at ] or ].
*Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta can be made at ].
*Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at ] following consensus at ] that the bot should be allowed to run.
*Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at ].

==Possible misuses of administrator powers==
*]
*]

]
]
]
]
]
]

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 02:18, 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 02:18, 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
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 02:18:47, 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

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: