Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jordanben (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 9 March 2017 (→Current nominations for adminship). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia: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.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
CaroleHenson 12 5 4 71 Unsuccessful 15:03, 9 March 2017 0 hours no report
Current time is 17:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
CaroleHenson 12 5 4 71 Unsuccessful 15:03, 9 March 2017 0 hours no report
Current time is 17:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Sennecaster RfA Successful 25 Dec 2024 230 0 0 100
Hog Farm2 RfA Successful 22 Dec 2024 179 14 12 93
Graham872 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
Worm That Turned2 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 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

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] 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: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.

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.[2] 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 Wikipedia, 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

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.[3] 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".[4] 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.[5]


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 17:10:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

CaroleHenson

Final (12/5/4); ended 15:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)

Nomination

CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) – Carole has been on Wikipedia for just over six years. Her specialist subject is the visual arts and she has taken ten articles to good article status including Langlois Bridge at Arles, Kate Millett, and Mary Brewster Hazelton, the latter of which she also wrote from scratch. She is a regular at New Pages Patrol and often looks for articles to rescue, such as improving Rabia Salihu Sa'id and helping to save it from AfD. She also takes part in the Adopt-a-user program.

I recently began to pick up on Carole's work around Wikipedia, and whenever I looked I have been impressed with the politeness, diligence and determination to make the project work. Her comments at AfD in particular always talk a good argument, even when consensus doesn't go her way. I think she'd be an excellent fit as an administrator, using the tools in a positive manner towards the NPP process, and I hope the community agrees. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination

I am delighted to co-nominate CaroleHenson to become an administrator. I have often seen her around Wikipedia and been impressed by her industry, courtesy, and clue. She's been here since 2011 and has 75,000 edits to her credit. She has created nearly 500 pages, including multiple GAs and DYKs, and has improved innumerable articles along the way. (Just take a look at the dozen or more barnstars here, from just the past couple of months, commending her for rescuing and improving articles!) She is a very valuable contributor at New Pages Patrol, and a patient and helpful mentor to new users. I believe she would be even more valuable to Wikipedia if she had admin tools at her disposal. MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination.—CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: My primary objective is ensuring that quality, encyclopedic articles are created and maintained. To that end, my primary interest is working on CSD and Prod nominations. I also regularly monitor recent changes to existing articles.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think my best contributions include new articles about women artists from the 19th century, prehistoric sites in Southwestern United States, visual arts, history, and other topics. Also important are improvements I made to new, existing articles, and some articles in the AfD process that I was able to save, like Debra Ruh. Helping others navigate WP guidelines and create informative and viable articles is also of great interest to me.
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 was involved in the initial work on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article. I think that I did great work there in many ways, but I also think that I should have held back a bit more about my comments on the talk page and let the many other great contributors weigh in first. There were disputes like this and this talk page dispute with one user, as well as this related ANI. I think that if I had held back on my edits and not been too involved in the flurry of edits in the initial days it would have gone more smoothly. I think it's better for me to have a more toned-down approach for developing stories, like my involvement in the 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting (article, talk contributions).

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Additional question from Andrew D.
4. The font used for your sig currently seems quite blocky and loud to me. Previously, you used a different font – Segoe – which looked more attractive. Why did you change it, please?
A:
Additional question from Leaky
5. A new user's Sandbox - their entire input to WP - contains details of what appears to be an entirely fictional virtual game show. No obvious BLP references. Should this be nominated for deletion? In what way?
A:
Additional question from ZettaComposer
6. Noting that administrators are often called out for, and have to explain, their decisions, I am curious as to your thoughts on the recent WP:AE request concerning The Rambling Man (link here) and the current appeal (link here). Two things specifically:
  1. Do you think Sandstein’s decision to quickly close the original appeal and block The Rambling Man for a month was the correct decision?
  2. If you do not think it was the correct decision, what would you have done?
Please feel free to take as much time as needed to answer the question – if you have not been following the situation there is a lot to read through. :)
A:

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support as nominator Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support We need more administrators, see no reason to believe they'd abuse the position. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Candidate clearly understands and appreciates the value of content creation and improvement, and although counter-vandalism is important having more content-savvy admins is a must! CaroleHenson's overall demenour on Wikipedia is one of a cool and collected contributor, and I see no reason why they would not continue being so with the mop. Thank you Ritchie and MelanieN for a truly wonderful nomination of an equally wonderful editor -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The candidate's efforts on the Donald Trump pages, dealing with difficult issues and difficult editors with the patience of Job, amount to exceptional work. The links in Q3 are modestly presented as confessions; they are anything but. The Washington Post even commended those talk-page debates as 'orderly', no doubt due in large part to the candidate's influence upon them: [1]. The candidate's content work, with its significant focus on female artists, is also commendable. The candidate will clearly be a mature addition who will add intellect and needed diversity to the corps of wikipedia administrators. My only hesitation upon review is that there might be some naivete at AfD from time to time particularly about promotional biographies (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Errett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Glasgow). But (a) I can't see the deleted articles to draw more concrete conclusions, and (b) I hardly think that takes us anywhere near disqualifying territory in light of all the positives. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per MelanieN's nom. Answer to Q3 indicates to me that they're able and willing to learn from their experiences, which is a pretty ideal trait in any admin candidate. Regarding the first oppose: I find it awfully difficult to knock someone for not having been to ANI enough. I mean, what's the worst case here? They actively avoid the page? I wouldn't blame them. Drama isn't fun. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Glancing over what's here and the ANI archives, I get the feeling that she probably should be an admin more than I should (not that I'm saying that I shouldn't be, either). Not particularly worried about AIV: if it had a backlog anywhere near the same size as New Pages, we'd be Uncyclopedia. Admins focused on New Pages is good. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Per PeterTheFourth. FriyMan talk 09:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support clear net positive to the encyclopedia, with no red flags. The oppose is unconvincing. We need admins with content creation experience just as much as we need them in more traditional admin areas.Tazerdadog (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per strong nominations and particularly the answer to Q3. Good work on new pages, strong content creation, and polite helpful interaction with other editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support precious visual arts and Colorado prehistory and always good interactions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as co-nominator. --MelanieN (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. support seems to have the proper qualities(and qualifications)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose - The candidate is very good and is qualified in content creation, however my concern is that I don't really see a clear need for the tools, and I think the candidate would be better off without them. I am also concerned about the lack of activity in administrator areas such as AIV. The ANI discussion also worries me slightly too as the candidate said she "had very little experience with the process". However, I am open to changing my vote if the candidate or anyone else is able to convince me otherwise. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 08:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Class, hope you're well! I'm not overly keen on badgering at RfA but if I may I'd like to offer this: I know where you're coming from, and it's a very very valid concern - as I mentioned above, counter-vandalism is very important. No point having all this amazing content if it's constantly in a state of vandalism. But, I would urge you to consider that having admins who know the real nitty-gritty side of content creation is as helpful as one who can whip up edit filters or bat away spammers in their sleep. I'm no content expert, and sometimes I have to skip over adminy content things which need doing - this is where CaroleHenson could really help us out. Food for thought! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 08:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply Sam, however my view is that to be an admin, you need to at least show some activity in adminstrator areas to gain experience, and that's not what I'm seeing in CaroleHenson. I can see your point and agree with the fact that we need more admins who know about content creation but the only thing they'll be using the tools for it seems is deleting articles tagged for CSD. I respect the fact that some people would like to stay away from ANI, which I used to do (until I was told myself in an ORCP I needed more experience there, so now I do participate there), but that is also a good place to demonstrate some experience in admin areas. Also, experience in counter vandalism is a must have for me to support, even if the candidate does not want to work there that much. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. CaroleHenson's writing and interpersonal skills are admirable, thank you for your edits! Unfortunately, in the last two weeks I see an this A7 nom justified on the talk page by a lack of perceived verifiability and a spurious G11 nom on an article about the chair of philosophy at Santa Clara University. Based on these and in the context of the answer to Q1, I do not feel that the candidate has the requisite level of mastery of deletion to be the sole check against bad CSD nominations at this time. I could easily see myself supporting six months from now if the candidate demonstrates improvement in this area. I also am willing to reconsider my !vote now if anyone can demonstrate that these two examples are outliers. VQuakr (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi VQuakr, I am not sure if you noticed that when the author contested the deletion, I went ahead and did considerable work on Carnival of Satriano di Lucania, per these contributions. In terms of the Shannon Vallor article, it seems like advertising to me because most of the sources are primary sources. That was my thought process. I do see your point, though, about the viability of the article being improved with independent RS.—CaroleHenson (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (edit conflict) Oppose. For someone who wants to work in speedy deletion, her judgment in that area has frequently been off, to the point that I cannot trust her with the delete-button. Some examples: A7 for article with plenty of RS, G1 within minutes on an article that only met A3, A7 on a redirect, two G2 taggings for A3-worthy articles ([2] [3], unfortunately deleted as such by an admin with roughly the same approach to speedy deletion), A7 with plenty of claims of significance, G8 on a redirect whose target existed (the G6ed and then taken to RfD where she withdrew the nom), A7 without checking the page history or the talk page, A7 for a school, another G8 for a redirect whose target existed (and another and another and another) and A9 for a recording of a notable band. Even some of the (incorrectly deleted) articles show such errors, such as this A7 with an offline source cited, this tagging of a non-English article that does not meet A2 and this A7 for the wife of a notable politician (with some claims of significance herself) (an accepted AfC submission!). The candidate seems to be a good content contributor but that alone is not sufficient to ignore such mistakes. We can expect a candidate who wants to work in a certain area to know the policies that govern it and this is apparently not the case here. If this request fails, the candidate should spend more time on such areas and reacquaint themselves with the criteria for speedy deletion before running again. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go through and look at all of these and make an adjustment if I think one is needed. For the very first case, the article was previously deleted and is currently at AfD for the 2nd time, where the only vote so far is to delete. Another example you mentioned went to AfD the recent decision was to change the page to a redirect to the article about the band.—CaroleHenson (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck out my comment because I was addressing the final resolution. There were some learning experiences here about use of CSD/AfD tagging. I have made / am making comments here about these items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I'm seeing too many declined CSDs for my tastes, and a misunderstanding of WP:CCS and the extremely low bar that it sets. I'm not comfortable in giving the tools to someone who is that unfamiliar with CCS, especially if CSD and PROD is specifically where they want to work as an admin. In my mind this is a content creator and gnome who does not need the tools or have enough relevant successful experience and understanding in the venue to wield them on CSD and PROD. From her RFA answers she seems to be a deletionist with overly high standards -- not a good combo for someone wielding tools. Softlavender (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per concerns with CSD work. Significance is a much lower standard than notability. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 14:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. For me being accessible to, dealing with, and supporting the community ~ community relations ~ is the most important area of an admin's "job"; i don't think i can support a candidate whose signature (given above, at 1758, 8 March) appears as two rectangular blobs, with essentially indistinguishable letters in them ~ without knowing that this is RfA/CaroleHenson, i truly would struggle to know who made the acceptance. I recognise that this may be seen as a minor point, and that is part of the reason i am here currently rather than immediately above. If the signature becomes more legible, and if my further investigations prove it wise, i anticipate being able to support later on. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a little odd, would you be able to screenshot the signature as you see it? To me it looks like this (imgur link) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this to me on Chrome. Pretty hard to read. Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have no problem with it, NoTime, if it looked like your example; on my computer, to mine eyes it looks very much like Sam's picture. But smaller. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well in that case I'd recommend a change in font CaroleHenson - as Sam's example shows it's rather unreadable. Odd how Firefox and Chrome chooses to display that so differently.. -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I use Chrome and the sig looked odd to me too. I asked Q4 about it before noticing this discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input, I had no idea that my signature was hard to read in other browsers. I changed my signature to the standard format.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Suggest to withdraw. Sorry CaroleHenson, but after you said in Q1 that you intend to work at CSD and soon thereafter it was demonstrated that you do not have (yet) the competence to be an admin there, your candidacy in this present day and age is sunk. This is not a wish or a regret, but a mere statement of fact, in spite of the current count of 12/3/1. Another run in a month or two will go much smoother if you withdraw now. I am not opposing since your AfD log looks rather clean, which means you tag CSDs to article that would be WP:SNOW-deleted at AfD anyways, but CSD are intentionally very strict. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a valid point. What is the process for that? Can the nomination section be used again after I get more experience under my belt?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I can close the nomination as withdrawn for you if you'd like - just thought I'd give you the option of replying to questions and tying up loose ends first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ritchie333 It sounds like the smart thing to do at the moment is to withdraw and get some better CSD tagging experience under my belt. Joshualouie711 provided a helpful metric / goal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral For a candidate that states that she wants to work in CSD (among other things), I'd like to see less than a roughly 20% decline rate among CSD nominations. Otherwise, I would consider her quite qualified, but at present I would suggest that she withdraw and come back when the CSD decline percentage drops to below 10% at least. --Joshualouie711talk 14:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support - I think Carole will be an excellent administrator, having content knowledge and the right temperament. I'd love to fully place this in support, but there is demonstrated weakness in the singular area in which the candidate states they wish to participate in an administrative capacity. I'm not going to say "wait 6 months" or any other time limitation, as soon as the candidate demonstrates that they have a comprehensive (not perfect, nobody's perfect!) grasp on CSD and PROD criteria, then I'll happily move to the support area, per the excellent nominators. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia 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.


  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=769433338"