Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

"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
Voorts 58 1 4 98 Open 21:06, 8 November 2024 6 days, 6 hours no report
Current time is 14:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Voorts 58 1 4 98 Open 21:06, 8 November 2024 6 days, 6 hours no report
Current time is 14:49, 2 November 2024 (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

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
AirshipJungleman29 RfA Withdrawn by candidate 27 Sep 2024 34 21 4 62
Significa liberdade RfA Successful 21 Sep 2024 163 32 10 84
Asilvering RfA Successful 6 Sep 2024 245 1 0 >99
HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85

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 14:49:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Voorts

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (58/1/4); Scheduled to end 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: ScottishFinnishRadish

Nomination

Voorts (talk · contribs) – Voorts joined the project in 2022, but I came to know him through NPP in late 2023, and I’ve been paying closer attention ever since. I’ve been impressed with his ability to show good judgement in closes, weighing in as a third party in discussions, and in efforts towards dispute resolution. I’ve found he takes the time to ask the right probing questions, to reflect and grow if he’s challenged, and to show humility and admit when he could have done better. I’ve been thrilled to watch him grow and explore other areas since then, doing so thoughtfully, carefully, and with attention to detail.

In addition, his content work speaks for itself, having promoted 12 articles to good article and 7 to featured article status, 5 of which he received Four Awards for. His temperament, patience, and willingness to help would be an asset to the admin corps, and I hope you’ll join me in supporting him. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

Voorts came to my attention via his strong nominations at FAC on topics as varied as law, film, and a political aphorism. In addition to his content work, he has found the time to engage in necessary administrative tasks, including carefully reasoned discussion closes and new page patrol. He has the varied experience and even temperament that are the hallmarks of a successful candidate, and it is my pleasure to co-nominate him in this first-post-admin-election-RFA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Josh and Vanamonde for the kind words. I have never edited for pay and never will. I have never edited under another username, except for my sole alt account.

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 have been actively contributing to Wikipedia for a bit over a year and half now. During that time, I have come to appreciate the importance of behind-the-scenes tasks that ensure the smooth functioning of the community and its machinery. I am volunteering to be an admin because I am willing and able to take on additional responsibilities to help with those tasks.
I primarily plan to use the tools in the areas of deletion and user (mis)conduct. Those areas align with my current backend interests, which are participating in AfD, patrolling with NPP and RCP, opining at AN and AN/I, providing third opinions, and closing discussions. I am potentially interested in using the tools in other areas, such as at AE and in SPIs, but I would first have to learn the ropes and feel fully comfortable with any relevant policies, guidelines, and norms.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My content contributions. I have created articles (and earned some 4As along the way), and brought several of them to FA, GA, and DYK. The articles that I am proudest of are Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., which I brought from an unreferenced stub to FA after an editor asked a question about the case at WP:LAW, and Costello's, a short article on a slice of old New York City.
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: Yes, I have been in conflicts. An example: In December 2023–January 2024, I was in a conflict over a discussion that I had closed. After the close, some editors came to my talk page and requested that I overturn my closure; I declined and suggested a close review at WP:AN. Thereafter, another editor overturned my closure without discussion, and things ended up at AN/I in a roundabout way. I’ll admit that at that point I probably should have just dipped out of that particular conflict, but instead I continued to post defensively at AN/I. After all was said and done, I sought a peer review of my close and have since incorporated the feedback that I received into my closing practices.
I have been in conflicts both before and since that close, and I anticipate that as an administrator who would continue to close discussions, I will face more—including when I get things wrong. I plan to deal with editing conflicts in much the same way that I currently aim to: remain civil, assume good faith, follow our dispute resolution processes, and seek advice of more experienced admins.

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 AirshipJungleman29

4. From the two discussions we've had on my talk page regarding closing discussions (see #1 and #2), I seem to have formed the preconception that you are slightly bureaucratically inclined, if that makes sense from context. I'm not saying that's bad—different perspectives are generally good for any enterprise—but would you say that's a fair assessment, or am I just letting a very limited sample size bias my thoughts?
A: I wouldn't call myself bureaucratically inclined (although I am a lawyer, so sometimes I might get a mild case of lawyer brain). I think WP:NOTBURO is an important policy and I have made NOTBURO closes. When the first discussion occurred in July 2023, I don't think that I fully appreciated NOTBURO and I certainly would not have made a similar close challenge today; after re-reviewing everything, I think it was reasonable to rely on the previous discussion in evaluating that RfC's consensus. Regarding the second discussion, which we had a couple of weeks ago about a proposed merge, I do not believe that a close is required for every discussion. I agree that WP:WHENCLOSE states that when editors have reached a resolution and moved on, a close is neither necessary nor desirable. However, editors did not reach a resolution in this proposed merge discussion, and I believe that it is usually desirable to close discussions about article notability. (As an aside, I think that a no consensus close would have been within closer's discretion, and I would not have challenged such a close, but I believe that there was a consensus to merge.)

Optional question from Significa liberdade

5. What did you consider when deciding whether to run for adminship via RFA versus the recent trial election?
A: There were timing issues with myself and the nominators, we had been planning an RfA before the election dates were announced, and I did not consider running in the elections instead because I did not feel that changing plans so close to the original date of nomination was prudent.

Optional question from Chetsford

6. First, thank you very much for making yourself available. My question relates to a comment you made in September regarding Unicorn Riot at WP:RSN. I haven't looked into this source much, though I think I'm inclined to agree with what -- I believe -- your position was with respect to their RS, in that they are RS.
In any case, my question is not about the conclusion you reached but how you arrived at that conclusion. In your comment [1] you explained research you'd done into Unicorn Riot's editorial process and seemed to indicate the results of your research into their correction policy validated their reliability. Can you explain your view as to the role editor-originated primary research contributes toward determination of source reliability, versus research by RS such as WP:USEBYOTHERS? (To put it another way, is the mere presence of a Correction Policy on a source website sufficient to assure reliability or do we need to validate the correction policy is actually being applied and, if so, is that type of robust content analysis the role of editors or the role of other RS?) Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I believe that both are important and that this question cannot be answered in the abstract. WP:USEBYOTHERS may, but will not always, provide evidence of reliability (defined by WP:REPUTABLE as “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). In the Unicorn Riot discussion, editors pointed out that it has been used by other reliable sources, including in academic journals, weighing in favor of finding the source reliable. However, use by others will not always mean that a source is generally reliable. For example, The New York Times occasionally credits the reporting of the New York Post, notwithstanding that Wikipedia editors have determined that, on balance, the latter is generally unreliable.
The guideline that I was relying on in the Unicorn Riot discussion was WP:NEWSORG, which states that "the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest" is a sign, although not a guarantee, of reliability. I found that their published corrections and independence policies were sufficient to establish reliability when combined with the fact that Unicorn Riot was founded and is staffed by experienced journalists. I also saw no indication that they do not abide by their policies, but would have reconsidered if other editors had provided evidence of unretracted falsehoods.

Optional question from North8000

7. You probably already thought about this one when deciding to run. It looks like you had a few edits starting 2 1/2 years ago and then really got started 1 1/2 years ago and then did several years' worth of work in those 1 1/2 years. Could you elaborate a bit on.....do you think you acquired the and scope of experience during that relatively short time period to do a good job in the areas that you intend to work in? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A:

Optional question from Kingsmasher678

8. As mentioned above, you've spent a fairly short amount of time on the project, and I was wondering if that gave you some insight into the current new user experience. In light of this, do you feel that the community currently does an adequate job of on-boarding new editors? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A:

Optional questions from Espresso Addict

9. Your editing pattern is quite unusual, with a lean towards "backroom" issues from the early months when you first started editing (eg May 2023: mainspace 24%; Wikipedia 26%). Would you care to explain in more detail how this arose? (Genuinely not attempting to insinuate anything here.)
A:
10. How do you respond to the mention of WP:MALVOLIO in the comments? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A:

Optional question from Daniel Case

11. You were nominated right after our first-ever trial of administrator elections ended. What made you choose the standard RfA process instead of that? Asked and answered per Q5 above. Instead, I will pose a scenario for you to tell us how you'd handle it as an admin: A user who has edited Wikipedia for years with almost no block history reports an IP to ANEW, claiming it's harassing him by constantly reverting his edits. But, upon reviewing the relevant article history, you find that the edits being reverted—and repeatedly restored—were unsourced, which the IP noted in their edit summaries. What do you do? What do you do? Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A:

Optional question from Rollinginhisgrave

12. Asking this based on your comments on GA verifiability in the Tamara (given name) GAN, do you think it's possible to use Template:Annotated link in a GA, following MOS:SEEALSO?
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. charlotte 👸♥ 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've come across voorts a few times, but we didn't have a solid interaction until they volunteered to take a GA review on my first big Supreme Court case article, Heckler v. Chaney. Why they chose to go for my 3000-word newbie monstrosity and stick it out for two months of review is a mystery, but I'm grateful they did, because they had a metric ton of invaluable feedback and they were incredibly patient as I did my best to sort through it all. Voorts is polite, methodical, reasonable, and sharp – doesn't get better than that. Easy support :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (edit conflict × 2) Heck yeah. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support ((edit conflict × 3), well-standing editor, substantial edits. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Good luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mach61 21:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, no concerns. Cremastra (u — c) 21:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, can't quite put my finger on where we've crossed paths before, but certainly a net positive also per noms, also per theleekycauldron — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support definite net positive with an impressive content creation track record. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per my nomination statement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. (edit conflict × 1) Support Wait a- I thought he already was a mop! Like, legit, I thought he already had the bit! MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support – meets my criteria. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Stephen 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Of course! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. It was just a few days ago that I found myself wondering when voorts was going to be an admin. Easy support! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support for a fine candidate. Miniapolis 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support: I've regularly come across voorts's work through NPP and have never seen issues I can recall. They're easily someone I would have guessed was already an admin. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support A kind, competent editor. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Not a difficult decision. I note in particular some good contributions to FAC including several thoughtful source reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per Tryptofish. SerialNumber54129 23:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. – robertsky (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support His closes at Phase II of admin recall was my first interaction with him. In my eyes they were good closes which got the ball rolling again on the new process. fanfanboy (block talk) 00:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. thumbs up ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Good candidate. Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I have complete trust in the noms that this is a good candidate. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - I got the opportunity to review a GAN for them and it was great work.--NØ 01:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Have generally been impressed by what I have seen of their work - convinced by nominators and a quick spot-check that adminship would be a net positive for Wikipedia. See also my comment below under the first oppose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support +1 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support – I have always thought that this editor was very competent and helpful, and showed very good judgement in various sorts of cases requiring it. He would make a great administrator. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 02:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, easily. I think Airship's right about his bureaucratic bent. (Sorry, voorts. That's lawyerbrain for you.) I also think that most of the times I've noticed voorts in a discussion it's because I've disagreed with him. Nevertheless I am firmly in support; he has good sense and the right temperament. I'd also like to point out a sample of his careful, detailed GA reviews from the past month: a pass and a fail. Clear understanding of WP:V very much in evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. SilverLocust 💬 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support! I've been waiting to see this for a while. I think voorts has demonstrated excellence in several areas of the project and level-headedness in making difficult decisions such as contentious RfC closes. I'm sure he'll do great work as an administrator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per nom. Have seen their work and the admin mentality is apt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support I've seen their work and been impressed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Looks great. Also, Blue Rider oppose looks more personal vindictiveness than anything else.--v/r - TP 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ Would you mind striking and rephrasing, @User:TParis? As stated, this sounds like a personal attack. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do mind. This is a discussion and we discuss the supports and opposes. There is an oppose that looks like a personal grudge and a vindictive !vote has spilled over here. My comment is intended to sway others that are on the edge to pay it no attention. So, yes, I do mind.--v/r - TP 13:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke: I wholly disagree that comes anywhere near to being a personal attack. As I touched on below, it is far closer to being a simple statement of fact; and bearing on mind that TBR has just labeled all criticism of him as "defamation", I think that speaks for itself. It's certainly more within SFR's remit. (Why the hidden ping, by the way?) SerialNumber54129 14:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SFR disagreed as well on my talk, so will accept my reading is not the majority opinion here.
    Hidden ping was my attempt to not derail the discussion here, subtle hint to discuss at talk or User talk. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Nothing bad, great candidate. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Just got to know about this RFA today. GrabUp - Talk 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support No red flags. Mox Eden (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I came across voorts in a couple of excellent closures, delved deeper into his contributions and offered a nom, but was too late :). Full confidence they show the ability to grow, take on feedback, are kind to newer users, and use the tools well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Looks great. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Though I’m not totally convinced by their decision to close this AFD as keep, it really feels more like a NC. But I have to admit, Voorts have a good ability to analyze whether a source is reliable—even sources from Global South—definitely a useful skill for an admin! PS. if I’m not mistaken, this will be my first vote in an RFA! --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I have seen them around, thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Looks good to me. I don't see any issues. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Has both the P&G knowledge and the right temperament for admin work. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Pretty much exactly what we need in an admin. CoconutOctopus talk 12:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support lawyer brain or not, a good editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Thank you for volunteering. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Good editor from what I can see. CNC (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge of when to WP:GAFAIL and, more importantly, lacks understanding of one of the core principles of Wikipedia: WP:V, specifically WP:CITE as demonstrated by quick-failing Tamara (given name) mainly due to its lack of citations on a disambiguation list. The Blue Rider 00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    linking this context here (without comment), for ease of participants: User talk:Voorts/Archive 41#Tamara (given name) review ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, it looks like there's a significant ongoing dispute between The Blue Rider and a number of other editors at Talk:Tamara (given name). Hey man im josh (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you trying to imply? The Blue Rider 01:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Blue Rider: HMIJ is not "trying" to "imply" anything; they are stating, as an objective, empirical fact, based on observable and presented evidence, that "it looks like there's a significant ongoing dispute" between you and the subject of this discussion. I can understand why, although I also suggest that HMIJ is being generous: since 19 October (two weeks ago—when voorts joined the discussion), you have made nearly 50 comments on that page, with around ten other editors commenting, most of whom seem to be in disagreement with you. To put it another way, you appear to be in "a significant ongoing dispute" with almost everyone there, including voorts. SerialNumber54129 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HMIJ is very intentionally trying to discredit my opposing vote because of unrelated ongoing disagreements on the Tamara talk page, a classic case of a red herring. What's the issue with my 50 edits? We're working towards consensus, and claiming that the majority disagrees with me is simply blatant defamation. The Blue Rider 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an interesting one, I wouldn't require citations for that list of notable people named Tamara. On the other hand, like voorts, I would not have passed the article at GA, and all the other issues they pointed out were entirely correct. Unfortunately the article doesn't have much chance of passing GA at present either (lack of stability). In the end, my difference of opinion with voorts here is far from a dealbreaker when it comes to adminship. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the article would definitely be quick-failed for failing criteria 5 at the moment. It was completely abandoned when I started editing it, but since then, an array of editors has become involved, leading to a lot of drama—sigh. I understand that this may not be a dealbreaker for most people, but that's my only interaction with him, and it was negative, so my vote is going to reflect that. The Blue Rider 01:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. I'm going to start here at neutral, and see what kind of badgering response my comment gets, and then use that information to move to either support or oppose. First of all, I really like the candidate's content work, and I see that as a significant positive. But, as the candidate notes, they've been doing a lot of non-administrator closes, some of which have attracted controversy. In the questions section, there's a link to this [2], where I think there's a legitimate concern about, well, WP:MALVOLIO. And I'll also note that the candidate made the closes that started us on the path to the current petition to desysop an admin, which isn't exactly working out well. Link to discussion about that: [3]. Now, I think that making difficult closes is potentially a good way to step up and help with difficult tasks. But I also think that there's a responsibility to get the consensus right, as well as to process concerns about the close in an impartial manner, and that becomes all the more important when one wants to become an administrator. Although it was good to ask for peer review of the first of those closes, there was an awful lot of feedback that was negative, and the feeling I get from the candidate's responses is just like thank you for your feedback, without really acknowledging that anything was questionable. I also get a slightly defensive feeling in how this was characterized on this RfA page. And again, at the discussion about admin recall, the candidate responded to questions, in part, by moving to being a partisan in the discussion, which undermines faith in the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fair to leave a comment in neutral before going one way or the other. My thoughts on this: first, I'd want to see evidence that this is indicative of a larger problem, which it currently does not seem to be. If he's doing "a lot" of closes, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few that prompted argument (Wikipedians love to argue, after all). I don't know if I would have closed the self-referential humor discussion that way, but while I can understand objections, voorts is on firm ground insofar as one side of the discussion arguing against P&G. I also don't think it's a point against him that he sought uninvolved opinions following a fracas where the participants had strong opinions on the close. I have to object more strongly to your characterization of voorts' admin recall closes, in that it's really unfair to retroactively attribute whatever happens with admin recall to voorts of all people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Looks like an interesting candidate and a fantastic editor! Adding a Neutral for now as a self-reminder to revisit later after they've had an opportunity to respond to more questions. Chetsford (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Chetsford above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Moved to support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gonna wait to support until my question gets answered. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I see no need to vote, but as this RfA has come up so soon after I became aware of Voorts, I would like to make a point. A few days ago I was preparing to make a substantial change to Pembrokeshire in respect of the overweight history section, when my first edit in the process was reverted by Voorts without any discussion, despite the fact that I have contributed to the article for years and Voorts not at all, that I can see. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tony Holkham, do you mean this edit? -- asilvering (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. But it's not the edit that's key, but the without discussion that I should have emphasised. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

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 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1254836967"