Wikipedia:Requests for adminship 

"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 19:41:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Paste

Voice your opinion (talk page) (2/0/1); 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)

Oppose
  1. Weak 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)


Neutral
  1. 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)
  2. 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 [1] 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)

It Is Me Here

Voice your opinion (talk page) (11/0/4); 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 ([2] [3]) and one successful FPC nomination ([4]). 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 [5]. 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, [6]), 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.

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)

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)
  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)

Blanchardb

Voice your opinion (talk page) (10/5/8); Scheduled to end 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanchardb (talk · contribs) – Excellent user that has greatly impacted the war against WikiVandals JRH95 (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing. I do not know the proper way to withdraw my candidacy, but when I accepted this nomination, I didn't realize the fact it was done by a vandal would be a problem for some users, let alone nearly half of those who have expressed an opinion so far. Although I realize it is still very early in the discussion, I do not want current administrators to feel I've joined their ranks through a parody of process, which would undermine their confidence in me even if this RfA is eventually successful. So I will simply resume editing the way I've been doing so far and hope for the best. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:37, 3 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: Mostly, what I am already familiar with: handling speedy deletions and AIV reports, and deleting expired prods (subject, of course, to my agreeing with the prod rationale). Since I do not feel comfortable with closing an AfD discussion (except in cases where the snowball clause applies), I will get some more experience before I try to handle that.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: When I'm not handling vandals, I am looking for ways to improve the core articles on Christianity. Three of those are permanently on my watchlist, and I intend to bring the article Prayer at least to GA status. I also do regular clerk work at Pages Needing Translation (removing entries on articles on which translation has been done, on deleted articles, prodding articles whose PNT entry went stale, etc.), and I occasionally do the translation myself if the article is in either French or Spanish.
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: The only conflict I can think of that is not with a vandal was with Écrasez l'infâme (talk · contribs). He insisted on making an addition to the article Bible which, to me, sounded like a WP:ROC and WP:UNDUE violation. He has been reverted by 4 different users, but claimed it was only me. In the end, he filed a WP:WQA complaint against me, not knowing that at the same moment I was filling a WP:3RR report against him, which resulted in him getting a 24-hour block. Although he appealed the block, he has not edited ever since it expired. The WQA report against me was archived as stale. The addition he tried to insert found a home in another article (where I could support its insertion), but was ultimately deleted there as well.
4. Optional question from FlyingToaster: Hello, Blanchardb. I think this will inevitably come up, so let's get it out of the way early. I was wondering if you have any connection to or experience with your nominator, JRH95, who nominated you as his 5th edit on Wikipedia?

General comments

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

Discussion

Support
  1. Support. Long history of good edits, no concerns, vandal hunting++, looks good. Um, ignore the nom... not sure many people's 5th edit is to nominate someone for admin... I'll ask a question about it, but will support unless something is obviously awry here. FlyingToaster 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not seeing anything that would give me pause. Long history of positive contributions, never blocked, deleted contribs show he understands CSD; looks good. faithless (speak) 07:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong support — Does anyone remember that discussion we just had on WT:RfA about not depending upon the nominators? The candidate looks good, has an understanding of policy and a flawless block record. Let's go! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support Well, what isn't right here? That the community didn't manage to propose and compile a decent nomination for Blanchardb or that xe accepted the first that came along? I know him from CSD and (I think) also from AIV without - as far as I remember any report or tag where I felt it necessary to raise an issue and would trust him further.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support 28,500 edits and no blocks would be enough for my support, but I've looked through your edits to Prayer and I like the way you are editing neutrally - bringing in and defending other religious viewpoints despite your user page making it clear that you have a particular and strong religious orientation. I think you could have perhaps made it clearer on this page the spirit in which you accepted this unusual nomination, and I'd suggest you check the box that prompts you to always leave an edit summary, but neither of those alter my opinion of your candidacy. Good Luck ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support This is actually pretty interesting, as it raises the question of how important the nominator/nomination (or lack thereof) is. My vote indicates my feelings on this matter. Keepscases (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support, as the nature of the nominator no longer seems to be an issue, and aside from that User:Blanchardb's contributions appear to be very good. It Is Me Here t / c 16:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Weak support - meets my standards, but I am a bit concerned about accepting a nom from a vandal. Best of luck! Bearian (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support with qualms about nominator. The candidate seems good...but considering this may come under review, I want to make it clear that it is the candidates history/clean record and not the nominator that influenced my vote. --Smashvilletalk 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose
  1. Oppose - The vote fixing seen here. Okay, so he's been here for 14 months. In now way is that an excuse to try and vote-fix your RfA. If this comment gets removed, I'm going to add it back in, but in that, it only shows that this user shouldn't be an admin if he tries to win through fraud.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Eh? They guy was fixing his partly malformed RFA. The oppose vote was made on the assumption that nominator was the one running. Please review your oppose, this looks like either stunning bad faith or that you have not looked properly at this RFA's creation history. Pedro :  Chat  10:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    The vote in question was from Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs). It is thanks to him that I am aware that I've been nominated. By the way, after I accepted this nomination, he changed his vote to neutral. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Sandahl's comment in the neutral section (#8). —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Tentative oppose - Sorry, but I agree with Daedalus on this one, removing that comment tips it slightly over the bar for me. — neuro(talk) 16:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I don't understand why you would accept this nomination. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Sorry, but even if the nominator has nothing to do with you (which I believe) it shows incredibly bad judgement to accept a nomination of this kind. I'm sure in a few months you'll be ready enough that someone will nominate you, you already have decent edits as it is. --Banime (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral
  1. I'd like to know if Blanchardb has any connection to User:JRH95 (his nominator, who has a grand total of 13 edits) before I post an opinion on the matter. However, it's fair to point out that Blanchardb has been here almost 14 months and has never been blocked, which is always a selling point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Neutral regarding the issue of User:JRH95. Something does not seem quite right here. It Is Me Here t / c 07:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC) As Checkuser evidence has proved that JRH95 is not a sockpuppet (in fact, the argument that they just want to become an administrator themselves seems the most convincing to me at present) and given that Blanchardb has stated that he accepted the nomination as he was expecting another to come along anyway, I am moving to support. It Is Me Here t / c 16:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Neutral would be inclined to support except that I have to question the judgement of someone prepared to accept a nomination from someone with so few edits. I'm hoping for a plausible explanation. Nancy talk 08:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    Some people just want to be an admin to help out, but are too sheepish to nominate themselves, which is probably due to the people that say they don't like self nominations. It seems perfectly plausible to me that someone might take any chance they're given and accept a nomination from a total stranger with very few edits. If anything, the RFA community could be blamed for backing people into this corner by making them so afraid of self nomination. --Deskana (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you have said which is why I have not opposed. I just can't support at the moment. Nancy talk 09:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Neutral This is ridiculous. Blanchardb is a fine user, but being nominated by User:JRH95, who currently still has 13 edits, and already knows about RFA, adminship, vandals etc. If he is an old IP user, I would not be suprised. but if he created an account just to nominate a random great user, (Sorry, I don't mean to accuse you, but assuming User:JRH95 is not a sockpuppet) I think the reason this user is nominated is toget some support votes for his own RfA. (See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JRH95) For the reasons above, I would immediatly oppose, but the questions answers and your previous contribs are very helpful, so I didn't do that. Also, this user is nominate only "for waging war with WikiVandals." Not good enough in my standards. Leujohn (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Neutral, leaning towards oppose, although I'll have to think about this a bit more. As noted above, the nominator User:JRH95 has a total of 13 edits and their main contribution so far seems to have been to push[10] the conspiracy theory that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Normally, the reputation of the nominator should not have much to do with considering the candidate, but this is rather an extreme case. Accepting the nomination from this kind of a user raises substantial questions about the candidate's judgement. Nsk92 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Neutral, with regrets I am familiar with the candidate, and last month I gave him a barnstar in appreciation of the fine work he has done. But I am greatly bothered that he would blithely accept the RfA nomination from someone whose presence and activities are raising too many questions -- he seems completely unperturbed that a supposedly new editor would abruptly show up and offer to put him in the RfA spotlight. Really, what's wrong with that picture? In my opinion, the candidate's judgment raises a concern, and at this point in time I am unable to offer support. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Regretfully Neutral: I have noticed Blanchardb's editing, particularly in vandal fighting. In fact I was under the impression that he was already an admin. I'm sure he is not sockpuppeteering, I'm inclined to believe that User:JRH95is a new editor who is obviously interested in vandal fighting and decided to nominate a "pro" he just noticed. But the hasty acceptance of this nomination is making me think twice. Shouldn't you have considered a little about who is nominating you, what kind of an editor it is? Careless mistake? We can't have any hasty decisions (and mistakes) such as this from someone performing admin tasks. Chamal talk 14:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Just a quick look at the nominators talk page raises a red flag. Not to say that it's the candidates fault but, I have to question why accept the nomination from a user with so few edits and a questionable history, something isn't right here. — Ѕandahl ♥ 15:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Neutral I've seen this user around Wikipedia: vandal-fighting, CSD, excellent work. However, when I noticed that the nominator has very few edits, providing the link by Daedalus, the made me pause a little. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 17:50, 3 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