Wikipedia:RFA 

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.


v • d • e
Requests for adminship sections
Administrators
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RFB
Bureaucrats
Nominate
Current admin count: 1,626 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 31 (list all)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

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

Contents

About RfA

The community grants administrator status 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.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time 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 that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical "vote". 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, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 03:28:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Paste

Voice your opinion (talk page) (5/16/4); Scheduled to end 14:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Paste (talk · contribs) – Paste Talk 14:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been active on Wikipedia for about 30 months with about 6500 edits, and find that as time goes by I am becoming more and more involved to a point where I would welcome being trusted with becoming an administrator and thus being able to more actively keep this valuable knowledge base as accurate as is possible in the circumstances.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I currently am active in new page patrolling with Twinkle and Rollback facilities. I look at recent changes when I can and participate in both nominating articles for AfD and participating in discussions put up by others. I have recently been allowed to use AWB and this is a very useful tool. I have made about 105 new articles, none of which I am putting forward as the finished article by any means, but most of which I have felt have added to the project. I will continue to try and keep vandalism to a minimum, assist at AfD and create articles that I believe add to the project. I am a member of the schools project and wish to get more actively involved there as I have considerable experience in this area in the UK.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: A very difficult question to answer. I have no 'stand out' contributions, I just feel that I am a regular positive contributor who is passionate about seeing Wikipedia being constantly maintained and improved.
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 cannot recall any conflicts and certainly none that have caused me any stress. I did recently have a few rather childish people from the University of Newcastle vandalise some articles that I had written and my user page because they did not like me nominating one 'Andy Matthews' for deletion but that was quickly resolved by another admin.

Optional question from Keepscases:

4. What are the origins of your username?
A: It goes back 40 years to when I went on holiday with my parents and came back whiter than I went, I never did like sunbathing. Paste as in pasty just stuck with a very few old friends and I just thought I'd use it as a nickname.

Optional question from Hoary (prompted by Ironholds's observation below, this is a follow-up to question 2 above):

5. Even if, as you say, none of your contributions stand out, can you at least name one or two good articles to which you added a substantial amount of material?
A: I think that I would reply by saying that I have tried to find gaps where articles are required and then at the very least tried to start the relevant articles hoping that people with greater expertise in the subject than me will be able to flesh them out. A good example would be the article Antiques Roadshow. It was noticeable that the experts, who are integral to the programme, in the main did not have articles on them, so that a visitor to the article who did not know the programme would have no idea who these 'experts' were. I have started most of the expert's pages, but fully admit that they are all stubs. Pages on UK gardening experts would also come into this category. The same would apply to schools in West Sussex where I live, and indeed UK schools as a whole, I have started several articles on schools. I would be the first to admit that I do not have encyclopedic knowledge on any one particular subject, more I have a good general knowledge. In terms of contributing to an article that I did not create, I have added a fair amount to Photobooth for example, for the simple reason that I do know quite a lot about them having worked in that industry. However I would say that my major contribution to Wikipedia is never going to be the creation of large and significant articles. I hope that answers your question.

Optional question from — neuro(talk)

6. At the moment I am neutral, so I am posing this question so I can decide on my stance. You list anti-vandal work as something you want to be a part of in an administrative position, but you have a very small amount (19 to be exact) amount of edits to AIV. How can the community trust your judgment over such issues when you have such a small amount of edits to such a vital administrative part of the anti-vandalism process?
A: That's a fair question, I can only really answer it by saying that I have only 19 edits to AIV because that is the number of times that I have felt the need to report an incident or individual there. I generally find that most (but by no means all) vandals stop after receiving warnings and those that don't are in the main blocked by admins fairly quickly. Most of the anti vandalism work that I have done is in respect of speedy deletes of new pages if necessary, reverts of vandalism via recent changes and keeping a close eye on a large watchlist. In terms of trusting my judgment that of course is not for me to decide, however I try very hard whenever I am using Wikipedia in any form to do to others as I would expect them to do to me and I try to use whatever experience I have gained over 52 years on this earth and rather less time here in a positive and polite manner. If I were an admin intervening against vandalism then these points would guide my approach (along with necessary Wiki policies of course).
Question(s) from CharlotteWebb
7. You mentioned an interest in AFD work. What is the role of "notability" guidelines in deciding whether or not an article should be deleted? Given an article about X, under what circumstances should a rough measurement of X itself be given more weight than a measurement of the information about X published by available sources? (always/sometimes/never, explain when and why) — CharlotteWebb 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Paste before commenting.

Discussion

Support
  1. Support 6,500 edits and no blocks, a civil talk page and looking at your contributions the articles you have recently nommed for deletion are now redlinks ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Candidate seems trustworthy and I hold no real concerns. Not terribly active in the "usual" areas we see RfA candidates at, but that does not unduly concern me; Paste will probably not be a hugely active administrator, but even sporadic use is a net plus. Answers to questions are fine, too. Support. AGK 17:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Solid edit count, and I have no doubt he is ready for the mop! America69 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - trustworthy editor. Has created over a 100 articles, so I think his article writing is sufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - good answers to questions and a solid history of good contributions to the project, especially with regard to CSD. The candidate's interest in CSD and AfD work are a big plus as these are areas that typically have backlogs, sometimes quite large. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Support per PhilKnight and Balloonman. Pcap ping 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Comment how can you support "per ... Balloonman" given that he opposed? It Is Me Here t / c 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Weak Strong Oppose - A thorough look at the user's contributions reveals an extremely weak interest in building an encyclopedia, but a rather strong interest in deleting content. I don't have anything against deletionists on the whole, but I find this balance unacceptable. Furthermore, AFD rationales are unimpressive. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to strong oppose based on glaring errors and inappropriate CSD taggings.
  2. Opposevirtually no work in the wikispace, no work in the wikitalk space, no articles where he has even made 10 edits to the articles talk space, and the one where he made the most (5) his first comment is If you had the common decency to wait you'd see it is now referenced and that it is not written from a biased perspective. Try signing your comments as well! He's only made 40 edits to his own talk page, and has not talked to another editor more than 8 times. A quick review of the people whose talk page he has posted to the most show mostly speedy deletion notices via twinkle. I don't see enough here to overcome the concerns that I have from what I do see. Since a fair amount of his work is tagging articles for deletion, I took a look at a number of articles he tagged. He often mistags articles. Some of them are deleted under the tag he provided, but in several cases the deleting admin retags them with appropriate tag. For example,
    These examples are just from the past 24 hours or last 40 speedies he's tagged. Hasty or careless speedy deleters can be a bigger scourge to our project than the vandals they fight. Only those who clearly know what they are doing with the tools should be promoted to Admin, and Paste IMHO hasn't shown that he is among the best. Admins who are speedy deleters need to be able to train/correct others who mistag, else our guidelines will be corrupted.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments but perhaps I could be allowed my reply? I do not know how many hundred of speedy deletes I have suggested but I do know that I always try to make sure that they are correct suggestions and I think that you will find that the vast majority of my suggestions are deleted and with correct tags. I do not make spurious suggestions. I may make the odd mistake on a category I'm sure as no one is perfect. Of the few you have found at least a couple of them may be open to interpretation. I felt that an article about a puddle in a car park was nonsense but maybe another category would have been just as appropriate. The second example starting 'A day the is rumored' still seems to me to be nonsense rather than anything else. I am extremely surprised to put it mildly that you can make the comment 'speedy deleters can be a bigger scourge to our project than the vandals they fight.' about my contribution to Wikipedia even though the sentiment may well have some merit. I think that the point where you have put up a comment I have made is very unfair, anyone who looks through my contributions will find that I am scrupulously polite and civil and this phrase must be the one case where I was even remotely blunt.unsigned comment by Paste
    My comment about hasty/careless CSD'ers is a comment about CSD'ers in general, not about you in particular. CSD'ers can be as big of a scourge to the project as the vandals they fight. A careless CSD'er can chase away productive editors before they even get started. A careless CSD'er can ruin the reputation of the project or piss off somebody who might be very productive in the future. As for your tagging hundreds of speedy deletions, I find it frightening that I only reviewed about 20 of your speedy deletions and found 7 that were questionable if not wrong. As for the puddle in a parking lot, please take a look at Wikipedia:Nonsense, which states it falls into two categories:
    1. Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. This includes sequences such as "sdfgdsfkgdshgdkhgdsklhsklgroflmaolololol;;;'dsfgdfg", in which keys of the keyboard have been pressed with no regard for what is typed.
    2. Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.
    Neither the puddle nor a "day rumored" fit either of those. They both make sense, even if they are both garbage.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    The above come from articles that were actually deleted, I took a look at the requests that were denied: by WilyD, by Gwen Gale, by Tikiwont, by an IP, by fabrictramp, by Ohnoitdjamie, by Seresin, by SoWhy, by bongwarrior. I excluded the cases where Paste removed the tag himself or where the article was substantially rewritten before the CSD was declined. These are all cases in his past 500 edits of undeleted article space.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per Balloonman's finds. The speedy deletion thing is a big issue; I don't care if 95% of your stuff is well-tagged, if 5% is badly tagged then it is an issue. 5% doesn't sound like much, but it says "X found this a good rationale for deletion" when it wasn't; something like that cast doubts on your appropriateness to hold the Delete button. In addition the talking problems are a big'un; 8 conversations? No (real) way of judging the users interaction with other users, something key to a good admin. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Per Baloonman, sorry, you seem like a nice enough guy though. If you were to come back in a while, I would have no hesitation switching if the problems were gone. :) — neuro(talk) 21:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, in light of the CSD-tagging issues brought up by Balloonman. It Is Me Here t / c 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - thanks to Balloonman for the work put in, which saves me from doing an extensive search of my own. Speedy deletion is, in my view, an area where a zealous admin can damage wikipedia irreparably. I believe that the criteria should be interpreted strictly and that all controversial cases should go to AfD or some other consensus-building forum. Paste has a lot going for him, and could make a good admin, which means that I have to oppose. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - I decline a db of his today (as link'd above). With so many careless new page patrollers active, admins (especially those who're likely to touch that are) can't be careless. WilyD 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Baloonman. macy 23:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Balloonman brought very concerning issues of Paste's CSD taggings. But if that weren't enough, Paste's user talk and talk contributions are very low, with most of the user talk contributions being automated by Twinkle; I fail to see much discussion coming from Paste. DiverseMentality 23:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. I would like to take this moment to thank Paste for volunteering to assist with adminship work, but I don't believe he is quite ready for the mop yet. I can ignore some examples of improper speedy tagging; for instance, I wouldn't make a big deal out of a G1 tag for something that should have been tagged G3. However, a lot of what Balloonman lays out above is concerning, as too much improper tagging could potentially turn new editors to the project away. In particular, this point stuck out: "A day the is rumored to be the day after cyber monday. In fact it is just dirty lies spread by business teachers which give there students something to do. was tagged G1. G1 explicitly excludes hoaxes or poorly written articles." Speedy deletion is generally not the way to deal with hoaxes - the proper way to handle them is to put a {{hoax}} tag at the top of the page, and nominate it for deletion. My recommendation to the candidate is to review the criteria for speedy deletion thoroughly, gain some more experience in the area, and return within a few months after demonstrating a more solid understanding of deletion processes, and I will hopefully support. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Strong opposum. He thinks that ′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→§·ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy–—…‘“’”°″′≈≠≤≥±−×÷←→·§ is not nonsense but vandalism. Pcap ping 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. Very Weak Oppose. per Balloonman. Jonathan321 (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    User does have about 6500 edits. He has about 4900 edits that have not been deleted, and about 1600 edits that have been deleted. For a total of about 6500.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)!vote has been redacted from the original [1]
  13. Oppose per Balloonman. Most newbies come to Wikipedia with good intentions, so when their articles get speedy deleted, it is important that they know exactly why. Of course, criteria G3 and G10, and extreme cases of A7 (e.g. John Doe redefines "awesome," end of story) could be regarded as an exception to this rule of thumb, but somehow I don't think that someone who writes an article about an upstart garage band is coming to Wikipedia with bad intent. Yes, they have to know that Wikipedia is just not a free web host, and that means we must tell them exactly that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Very unimpressive afd nominations and poor deletion calls after years of involvement in Wikipedia. I do not trust this user with the tools.--Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Wisdom89 and Balloonman. You should certainly try again once you have addressed all these issues here though! Happy editing :-) JS (chat) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. Oppose as there is a lack of experience with AIV and other Administrator Related fields besides deletion. Could use a lot of work, then I will support in another RfA.  Marlith (Talk)  00:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral for now, but easily swayed. While your record seems pretty good, the 30 months is a bit misleading; you've been contributing regularly (i.e not 2 edits, then another five in 3 months) for about 12 (although that isn't a problem). The article-writing bugs me, though; while you do have a lot of articles to your name, the 10 random ones I opened up are start-class articles at best with no inline citations. To me this shows you're not too experienced with article structure, which begs the question: what else might you not be experienced at? As mentioned I can be swayed either way by evidence. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Switch to

  1. Neutral – Wasn’t sure if I should place this here or up in questions. Here won. Right at the moment I have some concerns with experience regarding administrative dutiesand interaction (or lack there of with other editors. In reviewing your archived talk page, shown here [2] I noticed just recently, November (paragraph 79) a well respected editor and Administrator commented that your reasoning, in both nominating and expressing opinion at AFD, may fall short of what is expected and may even be taken as agenda pushing. Likewise, I saw similar comments from other editors expressing the same concern within your talk page. In addition, I saw very few responses from you to a great majority of comments or questions placed on your talk page. As a Administrator I would hope for more interactions and thoughtful comments. Can you explain how and what have you done to correct these perceived shortcomings. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. On the Fence I don't want to oppose you, you do understand what should and should not be deleted. I'm just troubled by the lack of cooperation with others. If you show more action on talk pages and AN and ANI, I would consider nominating you. Yanksox (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral The candidate's vices and virtues are too evenly balanced for me, so I am sitting next to Yanksox on the fence. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral - don't want to pile on. I think the concerns raised by Balloonman are valid- as a new page patroller it's okay to make some of these mistakes because an admin will always be there to fix your mistakes. However, as an admin, you don't have a back up, no one looking over your shoulder. That said, you seem dedicated to the project and it takes a large amount of courage to nom yourself for adminship: I respect that. Consider this a NOTNOW neutral, and I look forward to when I can support you. l'aquatique || talk 00:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    The sad thing is that there are a number of admins who make these mistakes as well... and there is little recourse to them, which is why poor tagging of articles pre-rfa is a deal breaker for me. Once we give the bit to a CSD'er, it is hard (if not impossible) to remove---and worse, we might never realize that there is an admin making major mistakes!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - To avoid pile on at this point. Tiptoety talk 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It Is Me Here

Voice your opinion (talk page) (24/0/5); Scheduled to end 07:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It Is Me Here (talk · contribs) – Hello there. This is my second request for adminship. After my first RfA, I went away and tried to follow the advice given to me in RfA number one, and now feel that I am once more in a position to request becoming an administrator. Namely, as well as increasing my edit count in general, I have tried to increase my experience in "adminly areas", by participating in more xfD discussions for instance. I now have two successful DYK nominations ([3] [4]) and one successful FPC nomination ([5]). I feel that I am open and transparent about the work I do at Wikipedia, with my user page containing a table of practically all my cross-wiki accounts and contributions, as well as a {{Usercheck-full}} template of me so that people can check any statistics they like about me relatively easily; {{Usercheck-full}} being a template, incidentally, which I helped create. As was the case during my first RfA nomination, I still try to replace PNGs with SVGs wherever appropriate in my Wikipedia edits, or alternatively tag PNGs with {{SVG}} templates (although a lot of those tags I do over at Commons), but I now do more copyediting regarding the placing of references within articles and also carry out other general grammatical corrections. I had started removing date links from articles a while back, but have stopped now due to the recent controversy surrounding date links and pending the results of the two currently ongoing RfCs on the matter. It Is Me Here t / c 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: Although I would still, as was my intention during my first RfA, use my administrative powers to carry out non-controversial edits to fully-protected templates if I felt it was appropriate, I would now also look to patrol CAT:PER to help other Wikipedia editors who want fully-protected or MediaWiki namespace templates edited in some way. Furthermore, since I now use Huggle as well as editing Wikipedia manually, I think I have become more adept at CSD-tagging, and would, as an administrator, look to delete any patently nonsensical new articles I came across, as well as reviewing others' CSD tags at CAT:CSD.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: The article to which I have contributed the most information remains the Europa Barbarorum article, I feel, and although it failed a recent GA review, I still feel that I have managed to improve the article considerably with my edits to it. Furthermore, on a more technical level, I hope that I have helped the Wikipedia administrator community by instigating the creation of CAT:AI, which lists all pages with administrator instructions in them, and Template:Usercheck-full, which I started, is now fully functional, I believe.
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 can think of a few occasions where misunderstandings or conflicts have arisen between myself and another Wikipedia user. On one occasion I came across a user who appeared to speak only Turkish. I had first come across him by notifying him that I had tagged two of his articles for speedy deletion. However, when I began to suspect that the user did not speak English, I tried to help move him over to tr:, as well as going over to tr:, finding an administrator and asking him for help. Eventually, it turned out that he was just out to do no good, but at least we tried. On another occasion, I was reviewing my global contributions when I suddenly discovered that I had been blocked on sco:, one of those wikis that I might visit so rarely that I have not included it in my table on my user page. I must admit that it was just after discovering that I had been blocked for what I felt (justly, as it turned out) was no good reason that I was the angriest I have ever been regarding something that has happened on Wikipedia. After finding an sco: bureaucrat, I messaged him with my problem here at w:, after which he replied that it had all been a misunderstanding.
Additional questions from Jon513
4. The speedy deletion criteria of G4 (reposted deleted material) applies only to material that was deleted through a discussion (like afd) - not a prod or speedy. Do you think this distinction is important? and if so why?
A: Oh, I remember once adding a {{db-g4}} template and then later realising that it had been incorrectly used for the reasons you have stated (as the article had been previously speedily deleted). Sorry! Anyway, I had since learned that {{db-g4}} templates are only for xfDed pages, and I suppose the thinking behind the rule is that, with a discussion and community-based decision, consensus has already been achieved and so there is no further need to review a page's eligibility for deletion or inclusion; with a proposed or speedy deletion, however, the decision to add the tag and/or delete may rest with one or two users, and so if the page's author contests the speedy or proposed deletion by recreating a page, then the subject matter of that page should be given more attention the second time round.

Optional question from Richard Cavell:

5. You have gone to some trouble to strip square brackets from dates - eg [6]. Why do you do this?
A: First and foremost, I had started removing date links (manually at first, and then using a script) because it was stated at MOS: that dates should not be linked arbitrarily. However, since that decision to change policy (that is, the decision to change it to saying that dates and years should not be linked) has come under question and two RfCs have been started on the issue (1, 2), I have temporarily stopped removing date and year links pending the outcome of those RfCs. As it happens, I do personally agree with the view that dates and years should not be wikilinked in general, since a link implies that the article related to the word linked is relevant to what the article in which the link has been placed; articles such as 1957 or 3 May, I feel, very rarely offer information which is directly relevant to a given article which links to them. In other words, just because George W. Bush was born on July 6, that does not mean that any other event which happened on the same date will have had any impact on his life or be relevant to him in any way. However, if the outcome of the two current date linking RfCs leads to a reversal of policy to once again support date and year links, then I will not contest that or edit in such a way as to go against its recommendations.

Optional question from Nsk92:

6. Could you please describe in more detail your mainspace contributions?
A: As well as my aforementioned work in improving and expanding the Europa Barbarorum article, which included me getting OTRS permission to use some of the images on the article (as images previously uploaded for use in the Europa Barbarorum article had been deleted due to a lack of permission / rationale to use them), and minor grammatical or stylistic fixes (many of which are now to change the placement of references in articles in accordance with the recommendations of WP:REFPUNC), I have also made more substantial contributions to articles. For instance, I, with the help of several others, added another column to what was already a featured list, Colleges of the University of Cambridge, using an article from their student newspaper, Varsity, as a reference. I will also add more information or references to an article when I can (e.g. [7] [8] [9]).

Optional question from Keepscases:

7. Please name one specific Wikipedia administrator whom you consider to be a fine role model, and explain why.
A: I am afraid that I do not actively track the contributions of or aspire to any particular Wikipedia editor; from what I have encountered, the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's administrators are polite, helpful and efficient in their duties.

Question from User:Pohta ce-am pohtit:

8. What RTW or EB mods did you use? clarified on request
Note: EB and RTW are the top two articles on the candidate's mainspace contribution list; see also candidate's answer to Q2, above.  Frank  |  talk  23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
A: I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question; could you please clarify?

Optional question from RockManQ

9. What do you think of WP:IAR and have you ever had to invoke it? When do you think an admin should use IAR?

General comments

RfAs for this user:
Requests for adminship/It Is Me Here Requests for adminship/It Is Me Here 2

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/It Is Me Here before commenting.

Discussion


Support
  1. No nom to beat support. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support talk page and archives show a sane and useful editor, 6,500 edits and no blocks is good enough for me ϢereSpielChequers 10:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support clean block log, good amount of contributions, all-in-all, a good candidate; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 10:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as there is really no reason to oppose. It has been about 3½ months since your last and you have worked hard. Certainly those of us with the mop will be glad to show you which end to use on the floor. Good luck! JodyB talk 11:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. Good contributor, good vandal fighter. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support' - Use is obviously experienced and qualified. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. 2 DYKs is what I have, that's no problem. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 14:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support looks quite fine. :) abf /talk to me/ 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Looks like you've been working hard. No reason not to support! V D on a public PC (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - WTHN? — neuro(talk) 16:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - I didn't have a GA (or even a DYK) when I became an admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support Good enough for me. America69 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - trustworthy editor and vandal fighter. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support gladly. I supported the first time around and see (as I fully expected) a consistent, solid contribution history since. Plus, I can't even spell "GA" or "DYK".  Frank  |  talk  20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support Pass go, collect $200 and a mop. Yanksox (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support Trustworthy editor with good contributions in a variety of areas and an interest in areas that often need the attention of those with a mop. Would be a fine addition to the cabal, in my opinion. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support Good & trustworthy editor. Knows and uses policy. I couldn't care less about a GA. FlyingToaster 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Sure, looks good. Marked improvement since last RfA. Good luck! GlassCobra 22:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  19. I looked at his last nom; he seemed to be a suitable (albeit slightly inexperienced) candidate at the time, and have only improved since. In particular, his positive and mature attitude, as demostrated by his learning from the criticism at his last RfA, is exemplary and a sign of things to come were he given the mop. It would be a net positive to promote this editor to adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support. macy 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support Would make a fine sysop. Sam Blab 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  22. SupportEnough for me to say yes.Wikidude57SBC 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support. I supported last time. IIMH continues to contribute well and remains a good candidate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support - Good user, I can't see him blocking Jimbo any time soon! :D JS (chat) 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    Whoa, I can do that? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  02:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  25. Weak Support Good contributor, could use some more work in admin-related fields like AIV and ANI though.  Marlith (Talk)  01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support I've seen you on Huggle, and a quick look through the rest of your contribs reveals nothing disturbing. J.delanoygabsadds 01:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions (assuming good faith). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  28. Support, natch. Not swayed by the article writing arguments, seems like an excellent user. - Revolving Bugbear 01:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  29. Weak Support - even w/o article building experience, this user seems like he would be a net positive. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral
  1. Neutral - I simply cannot offer my support to an editor with so little article writing experience. Two DYKs and one article that did not pass a GA review does not suffice in my book. However, I find nothing glaringly wrong with you as an editor and, because of this, cannot oppose. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 09:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    In my nearly three years of editing Wikipedia (and over two years of being an admin), I have generated 0 DYKs, 0 FAs, 0 GAs, and 0 A-class articles. My two "best" article contributions are a start-class article and an unassessed article; both were done before I got the sysop bit, and both remain my best single mainspace contributions since (and, in all seriousness, both are likely to remain my best contributions for the foreseeable future, given my wikignome tendencies).
    Just throwing that out there; article writing isn't the end-all/be-all for adminship. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    I know that article writing isn't the end-all/be-all for adminship, but it is, however, one of the easiest ways to assess a user's contributions to the project. Also, I don't think we should use a common-denominator approach when assessing a candidate (i.e. current admin X passed without "fill-in-the-blank", so don't hold that against candidate Y). I think that, especially for article-writing and mainspace contributions, we should not simply ignore the fact that an editor is lacking in a certain area because a current admin made it through RfA with a similar deficit, unless there are some mitigating circumstances. That being said, I am considering changing my vote to a "support" because of the candidate's response to question #6. This user has made a number of significant contributions to the mainspace that I seemed to have miss when I reviewed his contributions. —ŁittleÄlien¹8² 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    (@ EVula) Assessed. :) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - Sharing Littlealien's concern. Two DYK's does not an article writer make; i've come up with 32, and in article terms I'm a complete hack. Ironholds (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral until question 5 is answered. I will choose my vote then. Leujohn (talk)
  4. Neutral No glaringly obvious reason to Oppose, but no overwhelming reason to Support. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Both article-writing and admin-related experience is still a little weak. Epbr123 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

About RfB

Shortcut:
WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user and can 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. 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 USER ~~~~}} 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 frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below this line.


Current nominations for bureaucratship



Related pages