Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Header: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:42, 12 September 2006 editPseudo-Richard (talk \| contribs)27,682 edits →About RfA: Copyediting← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 05:49, 15 December 2024 edit undoTheleekycauldron (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators43,742 edits the "do not"/"editors may not" distinction was resolved by consensus at phase IITag: 2017 wikitext editor
(542 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--		<noinclude><!--


	NOTE:		NOTE:
	Do not place ~~actual~~ requests for adminship here~~. This is a subpage~~. Nominations belong at ]. Thanks.		Do not place requests for adminship here. Nominations belong at ]. Thanks.

			--></noinclude><includeonly>{{Redirect\|WP:RFA\|text=You may be looking for ], ], ], ], or requests for assistance at ]}}
	-->{{Shortcut\|] ] or ]}}
			{{Hatnote\|Note: Although this page is under ], non-extended confirmed editors may still ] on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.}}
	{{dablink\|"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for ], ] or ].}}
			</includeonly>
	{\| style="margin: 0 auto; font-size:smaller; background:none;"
			{{Skip to section\|1=Current nominations for adminship\|2=Skip to current nominations for adminship}}
	\| if nominations haven't updated.
			{{RfA Navigation\|state=collapsed}}
			{\| style="margin: 0 auto; font-size: smaller; background: none; color: inherit;"
			\|{{purge\|Purge page cache}} if nominations haven't updated.
	\|}		\|}
			{{Warning\|Policies on ] and ] apply here. Editors may not ] without evidence. ] administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct ] and ], including—when necessary—with ].}}
	'''Requests for adminship''' ('''RfA''') is the process by which the Misplaced Pages community decides who becomes an ] (also known as an admin or a sysop). Administrators have access to additional technical features that help with ]. A user either submits their own request for adminship (a ''self-nomination'') or is nominated by another user. Also note there is a ].
			{{If mobile\|tag=div\|1=<div style="float:right; margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em"><!-- Parameter "1=" setting is for mobile view -->
			<inputbox>
			type=fulltext
			width=30
			break=no
			prefix=Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/
			searchbuttonlabel=Search RfA
			</inputbox></div>
			<div style="font-size:95%">{{nowrap\|{{RFX report}}}}</div>
			<span style="text-align:right; font-size:80%">''Current time is {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{FULLDATE\|type=dmy}} (UTC)''. — {{purge\|Purge this page}}</span>
			\|2=<div style="float:right; margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em"><!-- Parameter "2=" setting is for desktop view -->
			<inputbox>
			type=fulltext
			width=30
			break=no
			prefix=Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/
			searchbuttonlabel=Search RfA
			</inputbox>
			<div style="margin: 0.5em 0">{{RFX report}}</div>
			<div style="text-align:right">''Current time is {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{FULLDATE\|type=dmy}} (UTC)''. — {{purge\|Purge this page}}</div>
			</div>
			}}
			{{TOCright\|limit=3}}
			{{Shortcut\|WP:RFA\|WP:RFX}}
			'''Requests for adminship''' ('''RfA''') is the process by which the ] decides who will become ] (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in ]. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (]) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the ], ], and ] before submitting your request. Also, consider ] about your chances of passing an RfA.

			This page also hosts ''']''' ('''RfB'''), where new ] are selected.
	Please be familiar with the ] and ], as well as the ] before submitting your request.

			If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through ] before you participate.
	<center>

	{\| style="margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: #99B3FF solid 1px; clear: right" width: "730px"
			One trial run of an experimental process of ] took place in October 2024.
	\|-

	\| ''']'''
			== About administrators ==
	\| ''']'''
			The additional features granted to ] are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are ] 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 ] and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the ] rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
	\| '''] (since Apr 2004)'''

	\|}
			== About RfA ==
	</center>
			{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Recent}}
			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 ] on Misplaced Pages (500 edits and 30 days of experience).<ref>Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I#Proposal_25:_Require_nominees_to_be_extended_confirmed}}.</ref> However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally ] 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 ] and some ] RfAs, or start an ].

			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 ] nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore ] by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to ]; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at ]. The ] and the ] might be helpful, while ] 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 ''']'''. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them <u>before</u> 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<span class="anchor" id="Canvassing"></span> ===
			Some candidates display the {{tlx\|RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per ], RfAs are to be advertised on ] and ]. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) <code>en</code>.

			=== 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 ]'''.<ref>Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at {{section link\|Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_I\|Proposal_14:_Suffrage_requirements}}.</ref> 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 "]".

			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, ], or ]. 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 ]''' 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 ]. {{anchor\|irrelevant}}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 "]ing" 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.
	{{TOCright}}

			=== Discussion, decision, and closing procedures<span class="anchor" id="Decision process"></span> ===
	==About RfA==
			<div style="font-size:90%;">''For more information, see: ]''.</div>
	The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Misplaced Pages. Administrators must be courteous and must exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees must have been on Misplaced Pages long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Almost all administrator actions are reversible. Adminship is primarily an extra responsibility as there are rules and policies that apply only to administrators.
			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 ] symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a ] will review the discussion to see whether there is a ] 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 ] 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'''.<ref>The community determined this in a ].</ref> 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.
	; Nomination standards
	:There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than a basic level of trust from other editors. However, some users set a variety of ] on a personal basis. The nomination statement and responses to questions should indicate that the user is familiar with the tools and roles of administrators.

			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".<ref>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.</ref> 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.
	; Decision process
	:Any user in good standing may nominate any user. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship you may wish to try an ] first. Nominations remain for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time interested users register their opinions or make comments. At the end of that period, candidates who receive a general consensus to promote will be made administrators. The bureaucrats who handle administrator promotions review the discussion to see whether there is a general community ] for promotion. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus (with few RFAs succeeding with less than 75% support), but a request for adminship should not be perceived as a vote: the bureaucrats exercise their discretion in deciding whether consensus for promotion of the candidate has been achieved.

			If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with ] or ]. 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 ]. 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.
	:Bureaucrats may use their discretion to close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit from leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close or de-list a nomination as a definitive promotion or non-promotion. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may choose to de-list a nomination but they are never empowered to decide on whether consensus has been achieved.

			=== Monitors ===
	:In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend the deadline or call for a rerun if this will make the consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors feel that at least two or even three months is better.
			{{Shortcut\|WP:MONITOR}}
			In the ], the community authorized ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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 <em>and</em> 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.<ref>] and ]</ref><noinclude>

			== Footnotes ==
	; '''How to nominate an editor for adminship'''
			{{Reflist}}
	:To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, ].

			]
	:If you would like to request assistance in creating a nomination statement, please go ].

			] <!-- redirect to ] (]), may be transfered later to Wikidata, but not now -->
	; '''Voting and expressing opinions'''
	* '''Who may comment''': Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment, except for the candidate
	* '''Who may not comment''': Editors who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"). Certain comments may be discounted and certain contributions removed if there is suspicion of fraud. Such may be the contributions of ''very new editors'' or if there are other reasons to arise the suspicions of ], as well as ] and other activity that may be the result of an illegitimate attempt to shift the balance of opinion.
	* '''To add a comment''', click the "Discuss here" link for the relevant candidate. You may then indicate whether you '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' the nomination by signing your name under the relevant heading. Any Wikipedian, including very new editors and "anons", may participate in the discussion in the "comments" section. The candidate may respond to questions/concerns/comments.
	* "'''Neutral'''" comments are also permitted, but are not usually counted in determining percentages.
	* '''Explain''' your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
	:: Note: The major consideration for whether a user should become an administrator should be evidence of how the user will use the administrator tools.
	* '''Always ]''' towards others in your comments.
	* '''Threaded discussions''' are held in the '''Comments''' section. Long discussions are held on the '''discussion page''' of the individual nomination. ''Anyone'' may comment or discuss, including ''anonymous editors''.
	<noinclude>
	]
	</noinclude>		</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 05:49, 15 December 2024

↓↓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 22:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page

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

Current time is 22:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
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.

Footnotes

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.
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.
The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
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.
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

Category:

Matters related to requests for adminship