Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Geitost (talk | contribs)
m Interwikis => Wikidata d:Q4048254#sitelinks, small changes
Geitost (talk | contribs)
Line 44: Line 44:
[[simple:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter]] <!-- redirect to [[:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Front matter]] ([[d:Q13583264]]), may be transfered later to Wikidata, but not now -->
[[simple:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Front matter]] <!-- redirect to [[:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Front matter]] ([[d:Q13583264]]), may be transfered later to Wikidata, but not now -->
</noinclude><includeonly>
</noinclude><includeonly>
[[an:Wikipedia:Candidaturas á almenistrador]]
[[ar:ويكيبيديا:إداريون/تصويت]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Candidatures a alministrador]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Номиниране на администратори]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Candidatura a administrador]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o práva správce]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Anmodning om administratorstatus]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Kandidaturen]]
[[et:Vikipeedia:Administraatorikandidaadid]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια:Υποψήφιοι διαχειριστές]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Candidaturas a bibliotecario]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:درخواست‌های مدیر شدن]]
[[fo:Wikipedia:Áheitan um umboðsstjórastøðu]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Candidature au statut d'administrateur]]
[[ga:Plé Vicipéide:Riarthóirí]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:מפעיל נולד]]
[[hi:विकिपीडिया:Requests for adminship]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Administratori/Prijedlozi za administratore]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Kebijakan mengenai kepengurusan]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Amministratori/Candidati]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:管理者への立候補]]
[[ko:위키백과:관리자 선거]]
[[la:Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen]]
[[lt:Wikipedia:Kandidatavimas į administratorius]]
[[mi:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]]
[[mk:Википедија:Барања за администраторски статус]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Aanmelding moderatoren]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Przyznawanie uprawnień]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Pedidos de administração]]
[[rmy:Vikipidiya:Mangimata vash o administratoresko statuto]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Candidaţi]]
[[ru:Википедия:Заявки на статус администратора]]
[[sa:विकिपीडियासम्भाषणम्:प्रबंधक]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Prošnje za administratorstvo]]
[[sr:Википедија:Захтеви за администрирање]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Ansökan om administrativ behörighet]]
[[tg:Википедиа:Дархостҳои мудир шудан]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:เสนอชื่อเพื่อเป็นผู้ดูแล]]
[[ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:நிர்வாகி தரத்துக்கான வேண்டுகோள்]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Yöneticilik başvurusu]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Yöneticilik başvurusu]]
[[ur:ویکیپیڈیا:منتظمین/رائے شماری]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Những người muốn quyền quản lý]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Những người muốn quyền quản lý]]
</includeonly>
[[zh:Wikipedia:申请成为管理员]]
[[zh-classical:Wikipedia:有秩選舉]]
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:申請做管理員]]</includeonly>

Revision as of 18:04, 2 July 2013

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), 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.

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

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 impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages and files.

About RfA and its process

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia 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
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as 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:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia: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.
Nominating
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|a}} on their userpages.
Discussion and decision
Nominations remain posted 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. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. While the Neutral comments are ignored for calculating the RfA's percentage, 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. They may also close nominations early if a promotion is unlikely and leaving open the application has no likely benefit. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer.
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 several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". 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 relevant candidate. Every Wikipedian—including those who do not have an account, or are not logged in ("anons")—is welcome to write in the comments section and the questions sections. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The 'requests for adminship' process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even 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 in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and give more weight to constructive comments over unproductive comments.