Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFA)

"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
LaundryPizza03 20 1 0 95 Open 00:19, 17 April 2025 6 days, 17 hours no report
Current time is 06:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
LaundryPizza03 20 1 0 95 Open 00:19, 17 April 2025 6 days, 17 hours no report
Current time is 06:30, 10 April 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 community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions 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 %
Goldsztajn RfA Successful 23 Mar 2025 136 1 4 99
Barkeep49 RfB Successful 7 Mar 2025 219 5 8 98
Giraffer RfA Successful 1 Mar 2025 221 0 1 100
Sennecaster RfA Successful 25 Dec 2024 230 0 0 100

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 the extended confirmed right.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or 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 06:30:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

LaundryPizza03

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (20/1/0); Scheduled to end 00:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs) – This field is empty now. A previous draft of this RfA listed all three answers to the questions listed below, and I'm not sure what goes here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 9 April 2025 (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. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I was encouraged to do so after and receiving User_talk:LaundryPizza03#There_is_a_mop_reserved_in_your_name for my contributions to closing old CfD nominations, which are rarely monitored by existing admins; I have also noticed a chronic backlog at RfD, that is not helped by direct transclusion of log subpages making the page hard to load or use the reply function. Additionally, I was encouraged to do so after reporting various adminsitrative backlogs at AN, most recently for an F5-related blacklog and a CfD backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: For the best contribution to Wikipedia, I can't answer that question. I think the biggest recent project was to update the lists of isotopes, which I have done up to at least NUBASE2020/AME2020, a major comprehensive review of known nuclei and isomers, for all but five of the first 101 elements at time of writing.
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: For conflicts over editing, I have received a few notices about improper CfD closures; I have tended to reopen them or defer to WP:DRV, although I'm not quick to respond due to various factors outside the wiki. I anticipate that with an admin tool, I can diversify to other XfD venues and reduce overspecialization, one of several articles I created in the past — CfD is one of the few venues with non-admin-actionable delete closures. (Either depopulate the category, or list at WT:CFDW or WP:CFDWM. That said, I ran into a problem once with renaming a category populated by a protected template.)
Also, I received a talk page notice about misuse of WP:DRV, to which I reacted by using it less often. Further inspection of my talk page archives also found further short-lived conflicts at Magical alphabet, Fiveling, a mass PROD issue, a declines earlier draft of Racially motivated emergency call, and some others I didn't bother listing.

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 Mz7

4. Looking through your talk page archives, I stumbled across this thread from a few months ago about this DRV that you started: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 7#Guite people. Do you still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guite people was incorrectly closed? If so, how would you have closed the discussion?
A:

Optional questions from 68.2.138.130

5. What would you say is the most difficult or bold closure you have ever performed, at any XfD?
A:
6. Have you ever created a significant article, or contributed greatly to one?
A:

Optional questions from CaptainEek

7. An RfA has only three mandatory questions, but your answer to mandatory question #2 is "I can't answer that question." You have also failed to provide any sort of self nomination statement, or the customary disclosure of alternative accounts and paid editor status. How would you respond to an oppose vote that used those concerns to note that you seem rather unprepared for this process?
A:
8. This year you've made some 16,000 edits to categories, which is out of proportion to your usual edits. One of the reasons appears to be your mass CfD activity, such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_5#Category:Eponymous_categories, in which you nominated 2,389 categories, but which was closed as keep. Could you share any reflections you have on this mass CfD activity?
A:

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his 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.

Support
  1. YES!!! charlotte 👸♥ 00:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. CfD and RfD certainly need more admin assistance, so I'm very glad to see this. -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It is without question that the fields that LaundryPizza03 describes need more admins. As for content work, I've crossed paths with them in a few discussions: At WikiProject Chemistry; in astronomy-related discussions; in an RfC -- and I usually find their input reasonable. :) Renerpho (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Invaluable to the XfD processes and a well-rounded editor. it's lio! | talk | work 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Looks like a trustworthy editor, admin is no big deal. Has my Support. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support – why not? Graham87 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I don't usually vote in these but very very very useful at CfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ternera (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support- Unlikely to break the project IMO.   Aloha27  talk  03:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support - I actually remember the Guite people, which is one of the AfDs that most confused me. No concerns about giving them the mop. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, they say they "can't answer" what their best contribution is, so I looked through some of their content work. !Voters sometimes look for peer-reviewed articles, but most content isn't reviewed. It's more like sandbags stacked by hordes of arguing strangers, against a rising tide of ignorance and online misinformation. Many of the candidate's article edits move loads of sand to the right places. For example, these edits to dark energy, hypernucleus, and space colonization improve the quality of information, writing, and sourcing. Nobody needs an FA to close at CfD. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 'port Conyo14 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Seems fine. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. CfD will definitely benefit from this. Nobody (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Seems good to me. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose No significant content creation of any kind, the most prominent being Timeline of the far future where the edits are simply reverting others. (eg: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) I require evidence of you being able to produce pages before you can police them. See my essay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral


General comments

Who nominated you, LaundryPizza03? Renerpho (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renerpho, no one did. Nominators aren't required. This is a self-nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with the extended confirmed right 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1284831400"