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 18:07, 5 June 2004 view sourceDpbsmith (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,940 edits []; (32/0/0); ends 19:00 7 June 2004 (UTC)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:11, 22 December 2024 view source DreamRimmer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Mass message senders, New page reviewers40,165 edits rm closed 
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-->
----
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sennecaster}}


== 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!
#] 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)

'''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 11:11, 22 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
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sennecaster 230 0 0 100 Open 17:20, 25 December 2024 3 hours no report
Current time is 13:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sennecaster 230 0 0 100 Open 17:20, 25 December 2024 3 hours no report
Current time is 13:34, 25 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 %
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 13:34:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.



Sennecaster

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (230/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Sennecaster (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to finally present Sennecaster as an admin candidate. This is a long-overdue nomination of an editor who, if successful, will bring an immediate benefit to the encyclopedia in the area of copyright cleanup.

Senne's talent for handling difficult administrative tasks is evident in her copyright work, where not only does she deal with the day-to-day effort of actual copyright cleanup, but actively works to make the area easier to work in for everyone else. She is almost single-handedly responsible for a complete rewrite of the previously confusing process at Copyright problems, making it far more streamlined and editor-friendly. She has led the way in reducing redundancy by phasing out tags like {{cv-unsure}} and merging the two sets of copyright clerks into one. Finally, Senne has demonstrated her commitment to mentorship by training all three of the copyright clerks who have volunteered within the past few years.

If she ever gets tired of copyright issues, I'm certain that Senne will bring her ability to act decisively but conscientiously to other administrative areas. Outside of copyright, she processes requested moves, slogs through backlogs like unreferenced articles, works on cross-wiki file maintenance, and occasionally dips her toes in at AfC. She has been an active VRT agent for over two years. Her PROD log is small, but shows a 100% success rate, and her logs show that she uses CSD and XfD with similar judiciousness.

I hope you will agree with me that Senne is exactly the kind of person who should be trusted to have the admin tools. I have no doubt that Senne will be an even stronger asset to the project as an administrator. ♠PMC(talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Every once in a while, you come across a candidate who doesn't just have a need for the tools, but a compelling case for why the project needs them to have the tools. Well, Sennecaster is absolutely one of those candidates! She has a ton of experience at CCI, a project that needs new admins very, truly badly. (Go look at how long the oldest case has been open for.) Sennecaster is among the most tenured copyright clerks on the project and specializes in some of the trickiest and least accessible cases, like copyright violations from offline sources, close paraphrasing, and translation copying. With the tools, she could not only take her own revdels off other admin's plates, she could handle other requests in the copyright area that could use a more experienced eye.

Outside of copyright, Senne does lots of other good work for the project. She takes up lots of actions from requested moves, including technical requests and discussion closes, and helps out with VRT, PROD, and and AfC. She's also written a GA, Through the Darkest of Times, and while it's on the shorter side as GAs go, I'm impressed with how it handles some fairly controversial content and puts together a very good reception section from the available reviews.

Sennecaster and I have had many interactions through our time on Misplaced Pages, coming from roughly the same class of editors who came here because of the pandemic and stayed here because of the opportunity to do something useful and rewarding. I've always found her to be thoughtful, fresh, courteous, and insightful, the best qualities we could ask for in a new admin 😄 a long overdue candidacy I'm proud (and very excited!) to be a part of. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The fine print: I have not and will never edit for pay, and I have 1 (so far) unused alt account that is disclosed to ArbCom. I accept this nomination. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I've spent the past 3 1⁄2 years mostly in copyright cleanup, and I have run into many situations where my work on an article, listing, or file is halted because it needs an admin to do something that not many admins are familiar with. My copyright work that would use admin tools is deleting articles unsalvageable but not clearly unambiguous, presumptive deletions after 7 days, RD1ing removals, moving rewrites, and more rarely, blocking people that have repeatedly violated without improvement. The bus factor is extremely low in copyright for the amount of work to do; there are only about three other people besides me that routinely check and clear listings at CPN, and most of our copyright admins are currently busy elsewhere both offline and online. Additionally, a lot of moves at RMTR don’t need a swap, since the history is redirect targeting, and a better use of time would be to G6 delete and move into place.
The laundry list: Processing copyright problems and CCIs, RD1, doing histmerges off of WP:NHML, un-revdelling files that were once fair use but later determined to be PD to transfer them to Commons, CSD F8, F9, F11, G12, and db-moves. The short answer: Continuing what I enjoy doing here, but with extra buttons. :)
2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?
A: My best work is in copyright cleanup. I started clerking WP:CP a little over 3 years ago, and I’m proud to have participated in some major cleanups like Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 and WP:CCI/IEP. These two cases in particular were massive time sinks to our community; the first one I completed a majority of the image portion and overall took a 12 year effort from copyright cleanup members, and the second was an equally-longrunning CCI on a university program that unfortunately encouraged widespread copying from textbooks. I am also proud of Through the Darkest of Times, which I created and took to GA. I learned plenty about writing reviews and better understood how to navigate quotation usage in those sections.
I have been a VRT agent since 2022, doing mostly permissions queues but also replying to info-en at times. I am happy with how I’ve helped people with photo permissions or resolved their concerns, even if I can’t share the specifics.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: I've had disagreements with editors both over content decisions and copyright matters, and I use a lot of strategies to keep the discussion cool. I like to give myself at least 10 minutes between reading someone disagreeing with me and responding to have time to get past my initial reaction. In content discussions like an RM, I try to stick to the rule of only replying if I have a point I’d like someone to consider that hasn’t been brought up in the discussion at all or if I’ve been replied to myself.
At copyright problems, there’s a lot of gray area for how an issue can be handled, and I'm always willing to admit and revise when I've made a mistake. My approach tends to fall along the lines of what happened at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2024 September 18; a user disagreed with my judgment, so I re-checked the article and issue, and we went back and forth as we figured out what options were available. We concluded that a rewrite/BLAR was best.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Conyo14

4. You obviously have a lot of passion in the copyright sector of Misplaced Pages, but are there any other topics/subjects you enjoy editing too (i.e. Science, sports, politics, etc.)
A: Both of my created articles are on indie or small studio video games, and I suspect that as I play more indie games that have a lot of sources, I'll probably create/expand those articles too. In the future, I want to search and attain print RS for Celtic music so I can expand out that topic significantly. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Optional questions from Espresso Addict

5. Are you open to changing your signature? My first thought was that the pinkish red on the talk page link meant that it was red-linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
A: Of course, done so. I actually randomly generate the hex codes and adjust them to meet contrast accessibility, so I'm not attached to the colors at all. I've always had a note that I'm happy to change my signature colors if they're unreadable or confusing, and that won't go away now. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
6. I'm curious, could you write further about what is it that makes you so engaged with copyright work? My perception is that non-admins (not to mention most admins) don't often get involved in this area, or at least not so deeply. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
A: I was recommended to try CCI pretty early on and really liked the investigating of sources and copyright status. I like the steady process and wide range of topics I read about, but now it's also fuelled by a sense of responsibility. I picked up copyright problems because there wasn't a lot of people clearing old listings, for one. In a more lighthearted response, "intense desire to solve problem" to quote something PMC said to me. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Hawkeye7

7. On your user talk page you say that you support copyright reform. What reforms would you like to see? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
A: Copyright has a lot of valid reasons to exist, but I have a lot of issue with the length and scope. There are works that are copyrighted for upwards of 150 years, and only a few works ever make profit compared to what is published. Compare to patents which have a 20 year limit. I would prefer a more radical change to publish+50 rule, but PMA+25 is more realistic. Expanding FOP in as many countries as possible to include buildings at a minimum (looking at you, France and the Philippines), and increasing the threshold of originality in Commonwealth countries are other things that would broadly benefit more people. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from CanonNi

8. This RfA is almost certainly gonna pass, so here's a lighthearted question: where does your username come from?
A: I used a random name generator off of FNG (don't remember which one) and came up with this username by mashing together two results. There's no specific meaning to it, I just liked the sound of it. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Cordless Larry

9. I see from your user page that you're an advocate of open research and open access. Scholarly and official publications being available on an open-access basis can make the work of Misplaced Pages editors much easier. What is your view on how the verbatim text from an open-access publication that is available under a Misplaced Pages-compatible CC license should be used appropriately on Misplaced Pages, if at all? By that, I don't mean is it allowed, but rather what considerations should go into a decision about whether and how the text is used?
A: Compatibly licensed material can be useful, but like we caution in VRT, it may not always comply with our other policies and guidelines. I think my biggest considerations boil down to neutrality, consensus, and complexity. For instance, a research paper may be compatibly licensed and otherwise summarize scholarly consensus, but it is too POV for us to verbatim copy. In that case, it would be inappropriate to reuse without careful copyediting. We could have a very neutrally-worded paper, but it doesn't reflect current consensus. We would have to be careful with what exactly we copy or if we copy at all. Lastly, we have to make sure that Misplaced Pages articles are understandable by a layperson. If a paper is technically dense and requires subject expertise, it isn't appropriate to verbatim copy into Misplaced Pages. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from TrademarkedTWOrantula

10. I was gonna ask about your motivation for investigating copyright violations, but that's already been done. Instead, I'll ask this: How often and how long do you take breaks from Misplaced Pages?
A: I take breaks when two things happen; IRL takes precedence, or I find myself not enjoying editing as much. Both situations don't have a strict pattern of timing or length, but I both need time and the right mindset to edit and I will take as long as required for both. Within the last two years I've made sure to be consistent with replying even when in lower activity and I never lost track of major changes in my area, so YMMV if that constitutes as a proper break, but clearing copyright listings and doing complex investigations gets put on short holds every so often. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


Discussion


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her contributions before commenting.

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. First! 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Overdue :). Full confidence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. Obviously ;) ♠PMC(talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. Fuck yes charlotte 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Queen of Hearts please redact the offensive part of that. If you were on the oppose side and wrote the "no" version of that, I believe it would be struck as incivil. The same should apply here. RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm torn between (a) hoping this RFA doesn't get sidetracked by a pointless argument that has nothing to do with the candidate, and (b) a morbid desire to finally see a threaded discussion of a support get moved to the talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    There is a longstanding community consensus that there is no blanket prohibition on using naughty words. ♠PMC(talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    If I said "fuck no", that would be inappropriate, yes, but I don't think "fuck yes" is. Happy to strike or be struck if several people/a monitor think it's inappropriate. Re. Floq, I think a support got moved to talk at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch because it referenced God or something like that? Going off the top of my head. charlotte 23:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    I wrote "fcking finally" and raised no ire, so perhaps you could change your vote to "Fck yes"? Or would it be "Fck s"? Not sure if the letter e is allowed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    thnk t wld b "Fck ys", f y'r rmvng ll f th vwls lk n bjd. – ddhhr cntrbshr 19:29, 19 Dcmbr 2024 (TC)
    Yes, that would be this comment and this discussionRed-tailed hawk (nest) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    No candidate is free from Eris ✶Quxyz 18:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    In terms of the standards for monitor action, I do not see a basis to remove or redact this comment, as it does not contain significant policy violations and is not a blockable offense. -- Tamzin (they|xe|🤷) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure there is a long-standing consensus that using swear words is not a policy violation by itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. Support. Sennecaster is a treasure to Misplaced Pages and I would be exceptionally glad to have her competent and dedicated self among the admin corps. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. Support. A competent, friendly, level-headed editor I trust with the tools. Sdkb17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. Support I trust Sennecaster with the tools. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  8. Good impressions when dealing with CLOP and similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  9. Sure. EF 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  10. Support. Very enthusiastically! –MJLTalk 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  11. Support: I've seen her cv related edits and expect she will make great use of the tools there. Nobody (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  12. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  13. Support, very competent editor and fit for the job! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  14. Support genuinely thought this was another reconfirmation RFA at first, lol. Obviously support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  15. Support Dealing with copyright issues is a complex but important area for Misplaced Pages and I have great respect for those who roll up their sleeves and get stuck in to what can be something of a thankless task! I have only peripheral dealings with the candidate but I trust the judgement of the nominators and if they say she'll make a great admin, that's good enough for me. Neiltonks (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  16. LGTM. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  17. Support thank you for standing. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  18. Support ULPS 18:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  19. "I've spent the past 3 1⁄2 years mostly in copyright cleanup" Yikes. I guess what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Need for the tools + has clue + not a jerk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  20. The trope of "Wait, this user isn't already an admin?" has at this stage been used so many times it's basically become a part of RfA itself, but Sennecaster is a shining example of that trope. Thrilled to support, ser! 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  21. Support The fact that working in CCI for that long hasn't turned Sennecaster into the Joker is a strong enough reason to hand over the tools. Plus, she's been unfailingly civil and level-headed in all our personal interactions. — GhostRiver 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  22. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  23. Support: Exceptionally excited to see someone willing to take up the mop within the copyright space. The nomination statements are probably the most convincing I've seen. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  24. Support absolutely, without reservation. A clueful and kind editor — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  25. Senne has been an asset in the Copyright area for years and has engineered a lot of great reform and change in the field. She is intelligent and hardworking, and I have no doubts of her ability to effectively use the tools. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  26. Support per noms. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  27. Support per noms and my general sense of seeing the username around. Skynxnex (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  28. Support: Without a doubt, a highly qualified individual who I was also willing to nominate. PLEASE SO THEY STOP ASKING ME TO DO HISTMERGES! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should restart CCIing so there's another person to ask you. We need to keep those skills sharp... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (/my edits) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  29. Support jp×g🗯️ 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  30. Support. Kind, polite, and thoroughly qualified. Giraffer (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  31. Support; they have done excellent work in the copyright area. Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  32. Support One of the only times I can't say "Wait, this user isn't already an admin", because I know her from CP/CCI. Excellent work in copyright, and we always need more copyright admins. – dudhhrcontribsher 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  33. Long overdue. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  34. Support. Fcking finally. No admin who handles CSDs, RD1s, pdels, or histmerges is going to say "what, weren't they already an admin", because we've all been pestering her to run for ages so she can stop giving us more work to do. -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)\
  35. Support Fully convinced by the nominators and a review of the user's history. Thanks for doing the thankless work! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  36. Enthusiastic support. Candidate has both the willingness and the skill to handle complicated but necessary tasks. ModernDayTrilobite (talkcontribs) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  37. been waiting for this one! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  38. Support. Great candidate. Obvious need for the tools. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  39. Support We have an obvious need for administrators skilled in copyright issues, so that alone a strong plus. I am not a gamer but Through the Darkest of Times is an interesting read and very well done, indicating that the editor is a capable content creator. In the General comments section, we have an informal recommendation by an IP editor which I believe should be given a lot of weight. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  40. Ingenuity (t • c) 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  41. Per 81.2.123.64. Perfect4th (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  42. Support When I say I've had this watchlisted for months. Senecaster is great. She's taught me pretty much everything about copyright I haven't learnt through osmosis, and just in general has given me really great advice. She does what I believe is the some of the most important content work possible- turning a variety of completely unusable masses of close paraphrasing and copyvios filled with original research, plagiarism, and opinions, ect, into proper Misplaced Pages articles that our readers and content reusers can rely on. I have no reservations. She'll be great at adminning! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  43. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  44. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  45. Support Would be great to have another copyright admin around! The4lines |||| 21:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  46. Support X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  47. Support per the IP editor in the general comments. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  48. Yes, absolutely--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  49. Support. Sennecaster will be an even greater asset to the community as an administrator. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  50. (edit conflict) Support Unless I'm getting my names mixed up, I first convinced her to install RedWarn, and she was the one who first made me know what CCI is. She was also quite involved in getting that seriously understaffed project its own channel in the Misplaced Pages Discord server, and is perhaps the reason why it has been kept afloat for the past three years. No concerns. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  51. Support - Fuck yes. Copyright cleanup needs the toolbox, for sure. I personally don't think CCI uses a methodology that scales, but as long as we're going to pretend to use that heavily and insolubly backlogged mechanism, we need many more people. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  52. Support LGTM. Ternera (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  53. Support A solid candidate who works in a particularly difficult area that has already been mastered. They will be an asset. No problem supporting. scope_creep 23:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  54. So incredibly over due. So pleased to see this finally happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  55. Support Impressed by the CCI work. Has the experience needed to be an admin. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  56. Support- Absolutely without reservations. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  57. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  58. Support — Would be a very good copyvio admin. No concerns at all. Styyx (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  59. Support civil, has clue. Yes, please. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  60. Support I am very familiar with Sennecaster's contributions to Misplaced Pages. I have found her to be very competent and a strong net positive. My only problem is that she didn't run sooner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  61. Support - Their contributions to copyright problems alone given how understaffed it is make this candidate, in my eyes, more than deserving of the tools. In the years I've lurked the backrooms and seen this user act and speak, I have seen nothing that makes me feel granting the toolkit is anything but a net positive to the project. —Sirdog (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  62. Support - I haven't interacted much with Sennecaster but this is a very strong RFA - really competent in an understaffed area, and a lot of editors I really respect are going crazy with support. An IP editor below has attested that she takes account the thoughts of new accounts/anonymous editors. She even records spoken audio versions of articles?? Overall looks to me like a no brainer - big support BugGhost 🦗👻 00:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  63. Support never interacted with them, unfortunately, but they seem like a good editor + I trust the noms. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  64. Fuck, yes! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  65. ck yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  66. Support. Competent. Alexeyevitch 01:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  67. Support. Frost 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  68. Of course :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  69. Support - and thanks for everything you do! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  70. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  71. Support; yes! Klinetalkcontribs 02:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  72. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  73. Support Top candidate, with the case only strenghtened by the IP note below. Schwede66 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  74. Support Appears to know what they are doing - as evidenced by deleted contribs and logs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  75. Support - clear need for tools, not a jerk, has a clue, etc. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  76. Fricklefrackle yes. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 03:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  77. Yes, of course. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  78. Support - Always was helpful and friendly when I worked on a CCI case years back. Glad to see her nominated. Yeeno (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  79. Support. Excellent candidate and I’m sure they’ll make a worthy admin. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  80. Why not? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  81. Support I've heard nothing but overwhelming positivity, I look forward to you becoming an admin. Cheers! Johnson524 04:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  82. Support Tarlby 05:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  83. Support, lot of copyright work. ~🌀 Ampil 05:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  84. Easiest Support I can think of. SWATJester 05:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  85. Support per noms, agree with them. I've never interacted with this user before but having a look at their contributions and talk page, I think this user will be a great administrator to Misplaced Pages. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  86. Support Senne is well reasoned in their takes and is someone I have asked to RFA before. I think they'll be an excellent addition to the Admin corps. Soni (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  87. Support Good people vouching for her and I like the answers to the questions. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  88. Support Justiyaya 06:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  89. Support. I offered Sennecaster a nomination more than a year ago based on their even temperament and contributions to CCI, and found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that I had been pre-empted. I'm glad the time has come. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  90. Support because finally! LilianaUwU 07:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  91. I support this absolute copyright-compliance machine. Thank you for keeping Misplaced Pages safe and within legal bounds, especially in an era of unprecedented legal challenges. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (/my edits) 07:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  92. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 07:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  93. Support. Would make as a great admin given her experience working in copyright area and her positive attitude. Galaxybeing (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  94. Support seen you in so many places, I thought you were already an admin. You do great work, very easy support! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  95. per above ~ Lindsay 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  96. Support Volten001 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  97. Support. MER-C 11:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  98. Support. Willing to help with copyright issues, and good at it? Please, take a mop! Seraphimblade 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  99. Support no concerns. Rzuwig 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  100. no concerns Alpha3031 (tc) 12:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  101. Support Absolutely! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  102. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  103. Never interacted with this candidate but I trust Theleekycauldron. Maliner (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  104. Support! We need new admins, especially ones who are passionate about the boring things. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  105. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 13:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  106. Support no concerns and needs the toolkit. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  107. SupportAmmarpad (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  108. Support Full support.--A09|(talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  109. Support That's A LOT of support in a short amount time. Anyways, the candidate will clearly bring improvement to the project. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  110. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  111. Support! FifthFive (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  112. Support Thank you for volunteering! Not many questions to base my vote off of, but helpful feedback from other supporters and clearly done great work with CCI. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  113. Support an extremely knowledgeable editor and a great help,I have no doubts about Sennecaster's ability. Reconrabbit 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  114. Support - an outstanding candidate who will make an excellent admin. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  115. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  116. Support, without a doubt. Senne is one of the most proficient and experienced editors in copyright cleanup and mediation on the project; where I or others have had issues, she has been invariably helpful and even-tempered. With her front- and back-of-house contributions, I have no doubt that she will be an great admin :) – Isochrone (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  117. Support: lots of respect for this kind of work, great job on it Peachseltzer (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  118. Support, had positive interactions, does CCI work. Sohom (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  119. Support from Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  120. Support - looks good to me. Jauerback/dude. 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  121. Support: About Damn Time. Guess I'll have to stop nagging her about it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  122. Support. Truly a splendid candidate. Thank you for stepping forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  123. Support – Very good, extensive work in copyright-related areas, and great work in general administrative/content areas too. Would be a great administrator. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  124. Support Looks good. Doesn't necessarily mean that they have the experience to get into established editor conduct issues but I trust they would proceed accordingly. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  125. Another example of a candidate who should have run much earlier, in my opinion. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    Funny, I can think of at least one other one. ♠PMC(talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    There are epic geniuses out there who would benefit the project by having the tools. We just have to find them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Thebiguglyalien: But we don't know their username! How will we ever find them? Polygnotus (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  126. Support - Copyright is an area in desperate need of attention, and Sennecaster is one of the best editors equipped to deal with it. ♠JCW555 (talk)00:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  127. Fr*ck yes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  128. Support per nom. Morris80315436 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  129. Support. A thoughtful and detail-oriented editor, who will be a thoughtful and detail-oriented administrator. Good deal. — penultimate_supper 🚀 01:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  130. Fuck yes Noah, BSBA 02:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  131. Support. Normally I prefer my candidates to have done more article writing themselves, but Sennecaster appears to do careful work on copyvios and educating new editors about close paraphrasing, and would benefit from the admin tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  132. Support Just joining on in the bandwagon. Seems like a fine admin candidate overall tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  133. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  134. Support TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  135. 'Fuck yes'Abo Yemen 06:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  136. Kusma (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  137. Support per noms. Renerpho (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  138. GrabUp - Talk 09:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  139. Hell yeah! Loooooong overdue... Toadspike 11:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  140. Support - another no brainer. ''']''' (talkcontribs) 11:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  141. Support. I checked their editing history, and I didn't find any issues. Congratulations in advance! Baqi:) (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  142. Support Chlod (say hi!) 12:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  143. Support, looks to have done good work in an important and often neglected area - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  144. No concerns Girth Summit (blether) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  145. Support Uschoen (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  146. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  147. Support SWinxy (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  148. Support As a die hard of FOSS, when I see the words 'copyright' my heart sinks as a natural reaction. However having looked at Sennecaster's editing history, and how many have vouched for her, I feel confident that she will be a positive addition to the administrator team. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  149. Support. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  150. Support. Copyright savvy admins are needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  151. Support Absolutely. Mox Eden (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  152. Support. Yeah! TWOrantula (enter the web) 17:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  153. Support. Can't say this is a name I am used to seeing in my area of work a lot, but seems to have a clear use for the tools, a good head on her shoulders, and the support of some editors who I trust. I see no reason for not trusting with the tools, and look forward to having another admin working in a much needed area! Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  154. Support, with pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  155. Support. Trust the nominators, and Sennecaster looks like a great candidate. Malinaccier (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  156. Support. Definitely needs the tools, seems overall pleasant, and I trust the nominators. As an aside, I'm particularly tickled by the admins showing up to support so that she can do the work herself instead of asking other people to do it. Need for tools doesn't get much clearer than that! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  157. Support. Clear benefit for the project. Loopy30 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  158. Support. Happy with the answer to Question 7. Have not seen her around, look forward to doing so in future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  159. Support. Several reasons why Senne is a great person has been established already, so that I do not need to talk too much ;) This is not a matter of "no brainer" or "net-positive" or "no big deal". Senne has been an administrator without tools long before I came across her. Adminship is not an accomplishment, so I won't say "congrats", but I have confidence she is "ready" to do the job. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  160. Support as I really like everything I am reading about this user. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  161. Support. Thank you for your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  162. Support Hurricane Clyde 🌀 21:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  163. yes frack. absolutely no problems here Aaron Liu (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  164. Support We need more admins in this area, and it seems that this person would be helpful in that role. – notwally (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  165. Support—11/10 would vote again – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  166. SupportKurtis 02:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  167. Support - Excellent candidate, knows her stuff.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  168. Support I recognise the name and Sennecaster seem sensible so candidates meets my RFA criteria.©Geni (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  169. Support clear need for the tools. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  170. Support Good one. Regards, Aafi 05:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  171. Support Now we can hopefully have a dedicated histmerge admin. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  172. Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer 05:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  173. Enthusiastic support. I've done some work in copyright cleanup and I've seen Sennecaster's work up close. She's hardworking, very competent, and cool-headed and was an excellent mentor when I first started dipping my toes into CCI. Definitely someone who deserves the admin toolset and can put it to good use. — Callitropsis🌲 07:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  174. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  175. --Guerillero 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  176. Support. No reason to oppose this RfA. Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  177. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 14:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  178. Support. Excellent track record at CCI – always great to have more admins there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  179. Support. Great work so far and clearly fills a need! Jordano 16:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  180. Support - knowledgeable, trustworthy, will make a great admin. Vermont (🐿️🏳️‍🌈) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  181. Support- knows what they're doing. Bastique 17:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  182. Support No reason to oppose this The AP (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  183. C F A 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  184. I got as far as reading PMC's signature and that was enough for me. Mkdw 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  185. Support - Well-qualified editor. Thanks for your continued efforts with copvios. — CactusWriter 23:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  186. Support great editor. Lots of positive interactions with this editor and wish them well with the mop bucket. -- JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  187. Support, and thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  188. SilverLocust 💬 03:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  189. Support. No problems I can see, clearly a net positive, and handily already devoted to patroling an area in which we need more administrative attention on a regular basis.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  190. Support No issues with me. – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  191. Support Happy to get newbie admin. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️ 07:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  192. Support copyleft? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  193. Pile on support There just aren't enough admins dealing with copyvios. Ritchie333 13:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  194. Support - Great candidate, trustworthy, competent, good disposition. Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  195. Support Would be great to have more administrators experienced in copyright issues. Bogazicili (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  196. Support and thanks for answering my question. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  197. ResonantDistortion 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  198. Support Fucking Yeah! Great candidate to have the mop. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  199. Support This editor is one of the best and most helpful I've seen. Unconditional support. Wozal (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  200. Support--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  201. SupportCX Zoom 19:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  202. Support Leijurv (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  203. Support, absolutely. YuniToumei (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  204. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  205. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  206. Support absolutely. Had an eye on Sennecaster for a while as a future admin anyways for her excellent work in fighting copyvios. ~delta 01:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  207. Oppose, user has shown poor judgement by running so late for a mop that has been theirs for the taking for quite a while. JavaHurricane 10:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  208. Support has a clue, has a need. KylieTastic (talk) 10:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  209. Support Good to have additional admin in the copyright space; no concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  210. Support Excellent candidate, happy to support. Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  211. Support strong candidate, no issues. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  212. Support with holiday bells. – SJ + 17:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  213. Support per noms. Seems exceedingly competent and especially so in an area of the project that badly needs attention. The Kip 18:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  214. Support - No issues.Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  215. Support: ARandomName123 (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  216. Support : no problem. quebecguy ⚜️ (talk | contribs) 03:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  217. Frostly (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  218. Support - This candidate has a clear need for tools and giving her the bit should be a net positive for the project. - tucoxn\ 09:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  219. Ratekreel (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  220. FY Support. Truly unique RFA where only a few even asked the candidate questions. I see a large percentage of the !voters in this process are already sysops. This (and the frequent non-standard use of the expletive "fuck" in a formal process) tells me the community enthusiastically trusts this person being added to the admin team. Congratulations on the accomplishment, Sennecaster. It's an uncommon distinction. I'm looking forward to the debrief on this process. BusterD (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  221. Support Would make a good admin. (forgot to support earlier :))--Nintendofan885 15:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  222. Support Per above —Matrix(!) ping one {u - t? - uselessc} 19:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  223. Support per nom History6042 (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  224. Slam dunk support Give 'er the mop. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  225. H-E-double hockey sticks-yeahFlyingAce 21:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  226. Support: experienced and trustworthy candidate. arcticocean ■ 23:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  227. About time. — The Earwig (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  228. Support. Thank you for your work in copyright enforcement! Gelasin (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  229. While the copyright experience is great and we definitely need more admins in that field, the conduct seems a bit lacking to me, namely I feel like she leans a bit too draconian when it comes to some copyright matters. I consider myself pretty firm on copyright issues and we're a lot better about laying the hammer down than we used to be, but I still wouldn't go as far as to automatically presumptively delete stuff on the interwiki copyring or close paraphrasing sie of things from non-blocked users, which has been suggested to me more than once. I know this won't make a difference in the grand scheme of things nor do I want it to, I just want it to serve as a reminder that, as laudable as the work you do is, accidentally overstepping as an admin would not be hard to do in cases like this, so just be careful. Wizardman 03:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
  230. Strong support. We need more admins who are competent with copyright issues. Maproom (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
  • I am extremely curious about the lack of opposes from the "Content Creator" bunch, as the candidate only has two article creations, and neither are an FA.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    Me too; RfAs from users who are willing to work in copyright-related areas are often, if not always, free of any opposes for some reason; currently it will be listed at wp:RFX200. Some odd pattern out there.... ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's a very clearly delineated area of work that is heavily backlogged and can be worked on by a normal editor through the tools available while requesting admin help frequently. The need is much more clearly demonstrated than some other RfAs where the stated goal may be generally "to help out where other people aren't, since I'm pretty experienced". Reconrabbit 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    currently it will be listed at wp:RFX200 -- As the third highest unanimous RfA, if it remains without neutral or oppose votes; three more supports to become the second highest. Renerpho (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can only speak for myself, but as a "content creator" I can say if anything I'm more aggressive with PDELs than Sennecaster is. I don't have any concerns regarding understanding article creation and editing. Not everyone wants to write tons of articles on insert niche topic here, and that's perfectly valid. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've long argued, and really been pushing about this lately, that there's a lot of ways to demonstrate content work. That comes in many forms, such as promoting articles (good articles, featured articles, featured lists), articles for creation work, new page patrolling, creating articles, copy editing, CCI work, XfD participation, and more I'm sure I haven't listed. At the end of the day, it's about understanding content and the expectations regarding it so that you can enforce policies appropriately. Personally I got by just on NPP/AfC work and featured lists. There's a lot of ways to go about that any no one way is better than any other from my point of view, but the mix that Sennecaster has demonstrates plenty of competence and should give comfort to those evaluating it. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    As Josh said, there are ways to work with content besides creating articles. Someone who excels at copyvio work is going to have that strong grasp on the nuances, norms, and best practices around content and sourcing that I'm looking for. On the other end of things , article creation is a terrible way to measure someone's understanding of content. Someone could create dozens of stubs over a few days and brag about how many articles they've "created", but that only tells me that they don't have a good grasp on content writing or put much care into their work. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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: