Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
| if nominations haven't updated. |
 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pickersgill-Cunliffe | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 00:35, 15 June 2024 | 6 days, 22 hours | no | report |
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pickersgill-Cunliffe | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 00:35, 15 June 2024 | 6 days, 22 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 | % | ||||
| 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
Pickersgill-Cunliffe
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Nomination
Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) – Pickersgill-Cunliffe is a real titan of an editor and one I am confident will be an essential admin. Pickersgill has demonstrated competency in several fields including anti-vandalism, new page patrolling, and copyright cleanup. Pickersgill has nearly 200 accurate UAA reports and several uncontested AIV reports and NPP reviews; his edit summaries are full of crossed out names and red links. Outside of this quicker maintenance work, Pickersgill has valued work at Contributor Copyright Investigations, having used his subject matter knowledge to help close a massive decade long investigation. Of course, there’s another side to Pickersgill; he has an army, better yet a literal navy’s worth of reviewed content, with 74 good articles and four featured articles, plus a few A-class articles from the Military History Wikiproject. I mean, it’s overwhelming to pick stuff out, but I think HMS Beaulieu, an article Pickersgill created, is one of my favorites. Pickersgill doesn’t rubber stamp either; see his contributions to Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/June 2022. Outside of all the big numbers, Pickersgill still stands strong; he’s been elected a coordinator for the MILHIST wikiproject, and can be seen helping out editors new and old at his talk page and projectspace. Pickersgill has already demonstrated the desired levels of trust, and I’m confident he will be an excellent admin. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
I'm honoured to be able to co-nominate Pickersgill-Cunliffe for adminship. Pickersgill has been consistently editing for a bit over 3 years now, and in that time, they've put in a lot of work. They've authored over 100 articles, helped to promote 70+ articles to good article status, 4 articles to featured article status, and have worked as a military history project coordinator since October of 2022, always showing a clear commitment to high quality encyclopedic content. They don't stop there though. They regularly CSD tag pages where appropriate and make reports at UAA and AIV, all of which I've consistently acted on when I've been the processing administrator.
Pickersgill is clearly a knowledgeable individual, but what I appreciate most is their ability to recognize their own limitations and approach new areas with caution. I saw this first hand when they began participating at NPP and asked insightful questions that demonstrated a solid understanding, as opposed to simple memorization, of policy as well as the processes and goals that we have.
It's clear, at least to me, that Pickersgill is the exact type of level-headed, humble, knowledgeable, and reasonable candidate that we should want to recruit to the admin corps. I strongly believe they would be a net positive as an administrator, and I hope you will all join me in supporting them. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
Pickersgill-Cunliffe has been an excellent content created in the military history topic area for several years, and they have been a project coordinator for the WP:MILHIST project as well. Some of their fine content work includes Wolfe-class ship of the line and Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). In addition to this content and content management work, they have worked with UAA, CSD, and anti-vandalism work. They also have the time and willingness to provide guidance to newer editors on their user talk page. Wikipedia will be a better place with Pickersgill as an administrator - they are the rare editor who has shown a marked ability for content work, guidance of new editors, and skill at the behind-the-scenes processes that keep Wikipedia running. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. I have never edited for pay, nor have I edited with any other accounts or as an IP beforehand. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:57, 7 June 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 have been editing Wikipedia for just over three years now. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time here, whether that be in content creation, WikiProject coordination, or anti-vandalism. I would like to give back to the community by serving as an admin, looking to enhance my impact in areas I already assist in such as AIV, UAA, and CSD.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am first and foremost a content editor on Wikipedia, and I think my work reflects this. Of my four FAs I am most proud of Thomas Hardy (Royal Navy officer, died 1732). This was an enjoyable and rewarding article to write, exploring a man with a very interesting life but little presence on the modern internet. I am also proud of my work as a coordinator for WikiProject Military History, helping to nurture a community of helpful and collaborative Wikipedians producing some excellent content.
- 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 try to be calm and friendly in conflicts on Wikipedia. Disagreement does not have to mean dispute, and keeping a discussion civil in the face of diverging opinions is an important factor in making progress. When it comes to stress, it is good to remember that this is the internet. Responding or involving oneself in situations while stressed will always result in subpar work, and the best course of action is to disengage until one is in a better frame of mind to return. Inflaming the situation in the heat of the moment is never constructive. That said, I believe myself to be a rather even keeled person and do not easily become stressed.
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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Pickersgill-Cunliffe 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
- Very nice to see this! I was actually about to offer to nominate them myself. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Very happy to see him as a candidate, definitely someone more than qualified! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like I'll be handing off the baton soon enough! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
if nominations have not updated.
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
- 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.