Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
| if nominations haven't updated. |
 | Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. 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. |
 | Proposals to reform the Request for Adminship process are currently under discussion. |
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asilvering | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 09:15, 6 September 2024 | 6 days, 23 hours | no | report |
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asilvering | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 09:15, 6 September 2024 | 6 days, 23 hours | no | report |
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.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 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
| Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | O | N | % | ||||
| HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
| Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
| DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
| Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
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] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
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.[4] 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".[5] 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.
Current nominations for adminship
if nominations have not updated.
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination
Asilvering (talk · contribs) – Today it is my pleasure today to present Asilvering to the community as a candidate for adminship. Asilvering came to my attention with their perceptive participation at Articles for Deletion. I looked into their contribution history, and found a diligent editor with a focus on content. Asilvering has contributed to four GAs; has created more than 40 articles, on topics as varied as newspapers, prison buildings, artists, and suffragists; and has chipped away at improving sourcing and content on many other pages. Asilvering has been involved at WP:GAN, conducting nearly 30 careful reviews and helping coordinate the two most recent backlog elimination drives. And they have been active at AfC, an area that sorely needs attention from competent editors, and where the admin tools can only be an asset. In their interactions with other editors Asilvering was unfailingly cordial and constructive. They express their opinions, but are always willing to revisit their own position, which is essential to a successful admin. In short, Asilvering is a content-focused editor who can make productive use of the tools, and I hope you join me in supporting their candidacy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
I’ve known Asilvering foremost as an editor—a translator, a reviewer, a copy editor, a bibliographer, and an author—but lately I’ve come to see them as an admin. Asilvering has shown excellent editor foundations from their early reviews and writings related to women in the Paris Commune. Asilvering’s user talk page shows their progression into more public fora assisting new editors both in the Teahouse and Articles for Creation with admirable bedside manner. Their solid track record at Articles for Deletion shows the proper mix of “getting it right” and guiding to consensus without vote-stacking. From discussions at WT:@ and on articles, I enthusiastically trust Asilvering’s temperament for making policy-based judgment calls, and more importantly, to admit where they aren’t clued-in enough but will learn. I hope you’ll agree that Asilvering has much more to offer these areas of the project if given the admin tools. czar 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
Asilvering is an excellent editor and content creator who fully meets my criteria for what makes a good admin: being kind to newer and experienced editors alike, open to feedback and having a clue. One aspect not yet highlighted above is the work asilvering does to make the GA process more accessible to newer editors, for instance in creating a GAN backlog drive with a focus on new reviewers. This in combination with their good work at AfC and AfD makes me fully confident we can trust them with the mob. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination accepted. I can also confirm that I have never edited for pay, and that I have never had any accounts other than this one. asilvering (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
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've been quite content as an "ordinary editor" with some extra perms (AfC reviewer, NPP, page mover), but I've come to feel that I ought to volunteer to lighten the load on the folks with the mop. I already occasionally close AfD discussions, and could do more of that; the last couple of times I've poked my head in to RfD there have been a bunch of clear "delete" results I could have cleared out if I were a sysop; I am a generally sensible person (or so I imagine, anyway) and am more than happy to be aimed at problems that need to be sorted out by a generally sensible person equipped with admin tools. I am not particularly interested in the kinds of admin tasks that require heavy use of the banhammer (chasing sockpuppets, vandals, and so on), but never say never.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: The noobs I helped along the way. No, but seriously: I remember fondly the people who were kind to me when I was new - though I doubt most of them remember me, since for them it was just an ordinary Thursday. I do what I can to pay it forward. To that end, I'm a WP:GTF mentor, I keep an eye on WP:TEA, and I handle WP:AFC drafts.
- But I know that, conventionally, this is where I'm expected to foreground some content work. So I'll point readers at an article I recently rewrote from scratch, The Parson's Tale, which is the longest and most boring of the Canterbury Tales, and at a GA review I did recently on Émile Pouget, a revolutionary syndicalist whose slang-laced newspaper is rather more interesting than that.
- 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: No, not really. I've disagreed with other editors any number of times, certainly (just ask czar). I've given a handful of responses at WP:3O, and helped to sort out disputes on various talk pages. But this hasn't risen to the level of "conflict", and I don't find it stressful. Given the areas in which I tend to work, it's much more likely that someone is going to feel stressed because of me - because I've declined their draft, given them advice they've found frustrating, or so on. In my opinion, the best way to avoid this is to be patient and kind. I like to think I'm successful at this more often than not.
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.
Discussion
- Links for Asilvering: Asilvering (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Asilvering can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
About RfB
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
Related pages
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
- Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Nominator's guide
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
Footnotes
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.