Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:59, 1 July 2004 view sourceHcheney (talk \| contribs)3,439 editsm Reverted edits by Hcheney to last version by Ihcoyc← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:38, 25 December 2024 view source AmandaNP (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators45,699 edits remove successful RfATag: Manual revert
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Process of the Misplaced Pages community}}
	{{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.
	==Important notes==
			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:
	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.
			("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!
	Voting for nominations is for a period of 7 calendar days, unless extended, measured from the time of nomination. ''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)''

			END INSTRUCTIONS -->
	'''If you vote, please update the heading. If you nominate someone, you may wish to vote to support them.'''
			{{#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-->
			----

	==~~Guidelines~~==		== About RfB ==
			{{redirect\|WP:RFB\|bot requests\|Misplaced Pages:Bot requests\|help with referencing\|Misplaced Pages:Referencing for beginners}}
	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.
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/bureaucratship}}

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

			== Related pages ==
	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.
			* ]
			* ]

			=== For RfX participants ===
	:'''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.
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ] – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

			=== History and statistics ===
	:'''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, you should probably wait until you exceed the usual guidelines by a good measure.
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]
			* ]

			=== Removal of adminship ===
	:'''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.
			* ] – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
			*]
			* ]

			=== Noticeboards ===
	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 uncertainty, 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.
			* ]
			* ]

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

			== Footnotes ==
	''Please place new nominations at the top.''
			{{Reflist}}<noinclude>

			]
	''Current time is '''{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}''' (UTC)''
			]
	===] (0/2/0) ends 16:55, 8 July 2004===
			]
	An excellent, friendly, NPOV-following user who has made excellent edits and page creations in a short time. All my experiences with him have been positive. ] 16:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
			]</noinclude><!--

			Interwiki links are includeonly-transcluded from /Header
	:''This user has not yet accepted the nomination.''
			-->

	'''Support'''

	'''Neutral'''

	'''Oppose'''
	# Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this user join within the last two weeks or so? ] 18:32, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
	#*2,149 edits since ] ] ] \| ] 18:36, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
	#**Yes, that's what I thought. No offense to Custom, but he's way, way, way too new. I oppose. ] 18:40, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
	#At the risk of being a little hypocritical—I'm inclined to agree with Raul. (But having spoken to him a few times, I think he'd make a good sysop later). ] \| ] 18:45, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

	'''Comments'''

	=== ] (4/0/0) ends 20:37, 8 July 2004 ===
	A very smart, polite user who has made many fantastic contribs (~1140) about the scientific community, scientists, etc. Here since at least December 30, 2003.

	:Honoured and flattered to be nominated. Not something I'd especially sought but pleased to accept and be part of this great project. ] 16:01, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support'''
	#]</font><big>✍</big>] 12:39, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
	#] --] ] 15:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 15:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	# A shoo-in. ] 16:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	'''Oppose'''

	'''Neutral'''

	'''Comments'''

	User actually has exactly 1140 edits as of this posting (). -- ] ] 14:01, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

	=== ] (1/9/0) 23:35, 6 July 2004 ===
	I think he's an excellent addition to wikipedia. His work on the histpry of ]s is respectable, and he spends countless hours editing, reviewing or writing his articles. He does at least three articles per day, I think. '']''

	:''This editor has not yet accepted the nomination.''

	'''Support'''
	#'']''

	'''Oppose'''
	#Not <s>near</s> enough experience. -- ] ] 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#Needs more experience (Maybe DarkHorizon overstates it by saying 'Not near enough' however) ] 22:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#*Maybe so. Still, less than 500 edits on a small area of expertise isn't all that good for adminship, IMO. -- ] \| ] 22:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#Sorry, but even with the "Adminship shouldn't be a big deal" policy, (nothing against him personally) this user is far below requirements (-500 edits, barely more than a month as a registered user). ] \| \| ] 23:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#Not enough time here, especially when the number of contributions is not particularly high. I would give the nomination far more consideration (that is, take the time to evaluate the quality of contributions) if it came from a more disinterested party. --] 01:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	#Good work as an editor, but has no activity at all in the Misplaced Pages: namespace, and no interaction on Talk: pages, so no way of telling whether he would be a good admin or not. —] 01:59, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
	#I'm about of an age with ''Marine'' (call me Army 67-69) and I'd be flattered if one of my daughters nominated me so nicely, but this is way too soon in terms of time, edits and variety. Hope he'll be back in a couple of months when we know him better. -- ] \| ] 04:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	#I'm very sorry, but I must agree (not enough edits) although Marine is a good, decent user. ]</font><big>✍</big>] 07:14, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
	#He seems like a nice person, but just not enough experience to qualify. ] 16:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	# Good user. Try again in a few months. ] 16:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	'''Neutral'''

	'''Comments'''
	* 404 edits since 24 May 2004 . -- ] ] 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	**Nominee is also father of nominator, according to user page. -- ] ] 22:40, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	=== ] (19/0/0) 14:00, 6 July 2004 (2004)===
	<!-- is that the right date? I think it is... -->
	Tags stuff for speedy deletion, patrols Recent Changes, performs other fun administrivia. Chats onna IRC channel. Second-spiffiest user page I've ever seen (next to ]'s). Has a sense of <s>humor</s> humour. Claims to have been here since 3 April with 2600-2800 edits. - ] ] 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	:Er, well, I was surprised by Fennec's nomination, but... pleasantly, I suppose. Thanks, and I accept your nomination <s>for the Presidency of the United States of America</s>! ] \| \| ] 14:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	:For the record, I've never made a single biased or POV edit, IMO. I've never ''touched'' an article with a religious topic. I try to be NPOV at all times. And I always, always abide by consensuses here on WP, even if I don't agree with them. ] \| \| ] 17:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	'''Support'''
	#] ] 14:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 14:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#Keep. Er, wait… ] \| ] 14:44, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
	#] 15:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
	#Sometimes a ] is just a ]. In any case, we have many admins with strong personal views about both politics and religion. The important thing is that they respect the NPOV policy and not use their position to promote their viewpoint or suppress opposing views. I don't believe Blankfaze will do this, so I support. --] 16:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#If we asked our admins not to have opinions--or even not to make them clear--I can think of dozens who wouldn't be admins any more. Blankfaze has always behaved well in his interactions with me, and would make a good admin. ] ]]] 18:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) - despite the fish (formerly ]).
	#Good nomination - ]]] 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>] 23:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]</font><big>✍</big>] 05:35, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 06:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] ] 19:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# Hope you like this support ;-P ] 19:30, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 22:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# Support ] 23:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 11:54, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	'''Oppose'''

	'''Neutral'''

	'''Comments:'''
	*Actually has exactly 2,762 edits ] \| ] 15:03, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
	#(previous on opposing) I have to confess i am a bit distressed by the amounts of bolds and screaming used to respond to a perfectly well balanced comment on an opposing vote. ] 16:02, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#*I understand. Ordinarily, this would not be the case, but his comment was so ''un''balanced and just... off-base... that it really offended me. I pride myself on my tolerance and acceptance, and for someone to accuse me of being some sort of anti-Christian bigot... just... really offends me. ] \| \| ] 16:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#**You shouldnt be ofended. Anyway, i am removing this to comments, because i have really nothing against you personally. ] 16:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#***I shouldn't be offended if someone accuses me of being intolerant? Well, I'm sorry, but I am. ] \| \| ] 16:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#*I think this was intended as '''emphasis''' rather than screaming and is quite reasonable given the accusations… ] \| ] 16:10, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
	#**Thank you for that ''kind'' observation, Lysine. ] \| \| ] 16:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#* Blankfaze, you ]!!! I'm going to beat you up for that "warmongering tyrant" bit! <boof! pow!><br>However, I fail to see how this reflects on his suitability for adminship. Perhaps if you'd care to point out him adding POV to an article of some sort, Cecropia, you'd have a case... - ] ] 15:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	# I too would have been offended if someone made assumptions based on a picture of a fish. However think on this - It is quite possible that Cecropia was joking! ] 16:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	# <s>Sadly, I Oppose.</s> Blankfaze's apparent hostility to ] and ridicule of a Christian symbol (the Fish) on his user page suggest a current lack of maturity in dealings with the diverse community Misplaced Pages represents. Since I am bound to be asked, I am unchurched personally, and consider myself a ]. If I were forced to subscribe to the tenets of a faith, I would probably have to look toward ] in that it attempts to respect the validity of all religions, races and peoples. ] \| ] 15:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#*Whoa, no offense, Cecropia, but you're waaaaaaaaaaay wrong here. First of all, '''I have no hostility towards Christianity at all'''. I think religion is a great thing for a great many people. I DO have a problem with it playing such a prominent role in my nation's highest office, because not everyone in my country is a Christian. That is all you can read into that. I have no beef with Christianity. Second of all, the fish has '''NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING''' to do with Christianity. At all. It's the logo/mascot/symbol for my band The Milky Ways. The description text clearly says "blankfaze's avatar" ... His name is Fishy and it's just a dead stick-figure fish. It has NOTHING to do with Christianity. So, I respect your vote to oppose, but I want you to know that you're off-base on that. ] \| \| ] 15:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#**A fair enough explanation. Objection withdrawn, though I think you'll now have to deal with fish supporters. -- ] \| ] 16:34, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#***Thank you, and I apologise for getting so heated, but I take accusations like that rather to heart. Ikes! Fish supporters! I forgot all about them!!! ] \| \| ] 16:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#****THAT IS A GROSS NATIONAL INSULT AGAINST FISH (formerly ]) - ] 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# He really does strive for excellence in whatever he does, and has helped me, on multiple occasions, in cleaning up not only articles devoted to ], but to more diverse exploits as well. His user page is evidence of that. ] 16:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

	===] (18/0/0) 22:55, 5 July 2004 (UTC) ===
	Rmhermen has been here since sometime in 2002 and made nearly 10,000 edits under this account. I've never seen Rmhermen get into any trouble and was very suprised to find out that Rmhermen is still not an admin. (So suprised I had to ask before nominating.) Someone who's acquired so many edits and been around so long certainly deserves it. --]] 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	:I accept. Actually I've been here since the first half of 2001 -blame those early software upgrades which lost some of the edit histories. And I must admit there have been a few conflicts in that time. I remember HJ in particular. I promise I won't abuse any power. In fact you may have to remind me what it is. Everything moves so fast these days... nobody remembers back when... In the old days we ... ] 23:18, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support'''
	#]] 22:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 23:03, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
	#Wow. I know this is a cliche here on RfA, but I really, '''really''' thought you were already an admin. REALLY! ] \| \| ] 23:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#Support. -- ] \| ] 23:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#What Blankfaze said. ]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>] 23:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#An excellent choice I'd have nominated long ago if I'd thought to check. ] 23:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]. --] ] 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#An excellent nomminee. ] 01:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#Certainly. ] 02:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 04:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC) Without reservation.
	#]<big>✍</big>] 04:25, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
	#I didn't know Rmhermen had been around for quite this long, but even if I was only considering what I've seen of Rmhermen over the past few months, it's quite enough for me to support. --] 16:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]]] 23:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 17:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]] 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 19:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 02:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	#] 12:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	#] 13:52, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	#] 18:46, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose'''

	'''Comments'''

	===] (17/0/0) 03:11, 3 July 2004 (UTC) ===

	David has been here since the beginning of January and made 3,352 edits as of June 12. I thought he was an admin until I noticed he was revert vandals the old fashion way. I feel he would be a great admin. --] ] 03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	: Thank you for nominating me, Dick! I accept. Being an admin isn't something I've given a lot of thought to, but I promise that I will faithfully attend to any administrative responsibilities if chosen. To let others know where I stand, I'm a strong believer in democracy, so I promise not to take any major actions (deleting articles, etc.) without putting them to a vote first. I've been a bit quiet on Misplaced Pages in June due to a temporary overload at work, but will be back to full-time Wikiholism in July. Once again, I'm so grateful for this nomination. Thank you so much. ] 04:16, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''
	# --] ] 03:11, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# Good solid work and a lot of it! ] 13:46, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
	# Though people who speak ] frighten me, Dave is an excellent worker and has a well-measured temperament. -- ] \| ] 16:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 04:22, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) solid contributor
	# ] \| ] 12:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#--] 23:31, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]<big>✍</big>] 02:44, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
	#] \| ] 13:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) - solid friendly contributor.
	#] 13:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 15:23, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>] 23:26, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 18:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]<font color=chartreuse>\|</font>] 19:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC) Absolutely!
	#] 12:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	#] 16:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	'''Oppose:'''

	'''Comments:'''

	===] (30/0/0) ends 22:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)===
	Fredrik has something over 8000 edits since October 2003, and has been very active this year in particular. He has accumulated so many edits partly through very diligent and systematic work in cleaning up articles. He also has participated in discussing proposed deletions. As a result, I think we would benefit from having Fredrik as an admin. In enforcing our stylistic conventions, he has been willing to listen to opposing views and conducted himself in a very reasonable fashion. In sum, I believe he satisfies virtually every criterion I have ever seen anybody suggest an admin should have. --] 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	:I accept. Thank you Michael for the nomination and for the encouraging words. ] \| ] 23:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

	'''Support:'''
	#] 22:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 22:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] --] ] 22:44, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#]<big>✍</big>] 23:19, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
	#All my experiences with Fredrik have been good ones. ] 23:24, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 23:26, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] ] 03:06, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] \| ] 03:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) Fredrik edits the wiki like a ] reprogrammed to be extra helpful
	#:I, for one, welcome our new robot admin. Sorry, it had to be said. - ] ] 19:46, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 03:28, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
	# ] ] \| ] 12:15, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# I've already commended Fredrik for his almost mechanical diligence and cool demeanor. No doubt he'll be a great admin. ] ] 12:27, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
	#] ]]] 14:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# I have no doubt that Fredrik can handle being an admin. ] 16:03, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 18:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# My god...he has over 7000 edits and signed onto an account a few months after me... ] ] 18:21, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# My edits have just crossed paths with his (]). Support. - ] 19:30, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 20:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#] 23:13, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 01:38, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 16:26, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 02:46, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ]] 17:27, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) !
	# ] 20:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Fredrik is levelheaded, POV-conscious, and always courteous to other users. I appreciate the very high quality of his work, and heartily support his nomination.
	#--] 23:32, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#-] 08:33, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
	#] 01:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	#--] 14:29, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
	#]<font color=blue>'''≠'''</font>] 23:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 02:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	# ] 12:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
	'''Oppose:'''

	'''Comments:'''

	==Self nominations for ]==

	:'''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.'''



	==Requests for ]==
	''Please add new requests at the top of this section (and again, please update the headers when voting)''



	==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

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 19:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page

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

Current time is 19:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

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

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Misplaced Pages administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Misplaced Pages:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Misplaced Pages, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

WP:MONITOR

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 19:31:34, 27 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