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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HouseBlaster | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 00:50, 23 June 2024 | 6 days, 2 hours | no | report |
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HouseBlaster | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | Discussion | 00:50, 23 June 2024 | 6 days, 2 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 | % | ||||
| Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
| DreamRimmer | RfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 31 May 2024 | 45 | 43 | 14 | 51 |
| Numberguy6 | RfA | Closed per WP:SNOW | 27 May 2024 | 5 | 23 | 2 | 18 |
| ToadetteEdit | RfA | Closed per WP:NOTNOW | 30 Apr 2024 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
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
HouseBlaster
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Nomination
HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) – HouseBlaster has been one of the bright new faces of the 2020s, and I believe he will make a great addition to the admin class of 2024. HouseBlaster has displayed responsibility and good judgment with his work on the maintenance side of the site, which includes work at requested moves and on categories, files, and templates. With all the Categories for deletion closes he does, House might as well already be an admin; see the long history of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working for examples, where House has helped tame a backlog at for the last several months. Working in these areas can result in queries about closes and certain decisions, and House’s comments in discussions and on his talk page show level-headed and precise responses. Outside of this, House has an established record when it comes to patrolling pages, and can do some real article writing, too. I believe House will be an excellent admin, and that the guy who created the page documenting the Admin Baton can now have it passed to him. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Co-nomination statement
I'm absolutely delighted to introduce y'all to HouseBlaster – that is, if you haven't met him already! I first met him a few months ago when launching the 2024 RfA review, and I found him to be incredibly competent, easygoing, and hardworking. A dive through his contributions honestly blew me away: he does huge amounts of needed work through categories for discussion, new pages patrol, speedy deletion, proposed deletion, and technical requested moves. With a mop, he could do even more. On top of that, he's level-headed, reasonable, and civil. He's also helped make needed change in RFA2024 and to CSD, deprecating two CSD categories and semi-boldly deprecating a third. All in all, a truly remarkable editor who has more than earned consideration for the mop. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with gratitude to Moneytrees and theleekycauldron! I have never edited for pay, and I have three alt accounts: Houseblaster (talk · contribs), BlasterOfHouses (talk · contribs), and User toolbox (talk · contribs). HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:38, 16 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 would like to help out primarily at CFD and secondarily at REFUND. At CFD, admins are needed to instruct JJMC89 bot III on how to action the results of CFDs, which they do by listing items at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. To prevent abuse, that page is fully protected; non-admin closures are listed on the talk page, and an admin checks before adding them to the project page. Currently, this task has a bus factor of two: Pppery and Fayenatic london. As an admin, I would be able to process CFD closes on my own and, in turn, process the kind of non-admin closures I have been making.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I am currently one of two primary closers at CfD (for those of you keeping score at home, the other is Qwerfjkl). Besides helping to keep the outstanding discussion backlog as low as it can be, I am happy with the work I did purging Category:Songs written for films of songs that were not written for films – which had been sitting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual since a 2016(!) discussion. I also am happy with the work I did to get on implementing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent from, which had also been on the list at CFDWM for a while since 2022. (Currently, In part because of these actions, the oldest outstanding discussion at CFDWM is from October 2023.)
Content-wise, I would say
1934 German head of state referendum is my best writing. I am also proud of shepherding Daniel McCaffery – an AP2 BLP – through DYK (nomination). I will let my writing speak for itself.
- A: I am currently one of two primary closers at CfD (for those of you keeping score at home, the other is Qwerfjkl). Besides helping to keep the outstanding discussion backlog as low as it can be, I am happy with the work I did purging Category:Songs written for films of songs that were not written for films – which had been sitting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual since a 2016(!) discussion. I also am happy with the work I did to get on implementing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 17#Category:Citizens through descent from, which had also been on the list at CFDWM for a while since 2022. (Currently, In part because of these actions, the oldest outstanding discussion at CFDWM is from October 2023.)
- 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: Conflicts in life are unavoidable, and Wikipedia is no exception. My general rule is that I go for a walk when I need to take a second to calm down. Wikipedia will be there when I come back, and I certainly plan to continue doing so when I need to take a minute in the future. When I am interacting with others, I do my best to disagree without being disagreeable and focus on what will improve the encyclopedia. Asking for outside perspectives can be useful, whether that is at a noticeboard or a WikiProject (of course, while avoiding canvassing).
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.
Optional question from Starship.paint
- 4. Hello HouseBlaster, can you explain your user name? Thanks.
- A:. A long time ago at school (remembering the school I was attending, I was about eight years old) I needed a pseudonym for something (I have long since forgotten what that thing was). "HouseBlaster" is what I came up with, and I have used it since.
Optional question from Let'srun
- 5. When, if ever, is is inappropriate for a WikiProject to be notified about a RfD under WP:CANVASS?
- A:. There is not really anything specific to RfD which makes notifications any more or less appropriate than in any other venue. In general – and this extends to RfD – notifications that are partisan, secret, or non-neutral fall afoul of WP:CANVASS; disclosing that you have made a notification to a WikiProject at the original discussion never hurts.
Optional question from Conyo14
- 6. Greetings. Do you have an area of this encyclopedia you prefer to edit over others (i.e. sports, science, politics, history, etc.)?
- A: If you made me pick one area, political history. Though my favorite edits are the "spontaneous" ones – regardless of topic – such as fixing a typo or replacing a [citation needed] with a [1] in an article I was reading for other reasons.
Optional question from GTrang
- 7. Given your username, it looks like you will be "blasting" categories away (yes, this is a joke). But how are you going to judge whether a category is to be deleted (or jokingly, "blasted")?
- A: There are two parts to this answer, as a !voter and as a closer. As a !voter, categories which are unhelpful for navigation should be merged to parents (and yes, this is broad); categories which are overcategorization should also be merged/deleted. And categories for non-defining characteristics of article subjects are also a no-no. There is no "formulaic" answer to this question – like most things on Wikipedia, CfD is more an art than a science.
As a closer, I judge consensus in the way you judge consensus in any area on Wikipedia: evaluating the strength of the arguments presented through the lens of our PAGs, though headcount is not entirely irrelevant.
- A: There are two parts to this answer, as a !voter and as a closer. As a !voter, categories which are unhelpful for navigation should be merged to parents (and yes, this is broad); categories which are overcategorization should also be merged/deleted. And categories for non-defining characteristics of article subjects are also a no-no. There is no "formulaic" answer to this question – like most things on Wikipedia, CfD is more an art than a science.
Optional question from DandelionAndBurdock
- 8. Are you planning to do much adminning outside of CFD and coversely are there any areas of adminning where you don't think you'll have much involvement?
- A: I do plan to work at WP:REFUND, and I was recently appointed a trainee clerk at ArbCom. Implementing its decisions – e.g. blocking a user who was sitebanned after a case – does require the toolset, and I would use it in the course of those duties. I have no plans to do anything outside of these three areas. One particular area I have no plans to work is AE: a non-insignificant number of AE cases end up at ArbCom, and given that the clerk team is understaffed I would avoid that potential source of reasons to recuse.
Optional question from Idoghor Melody
- 9. Have you ever made any decision or taken any action in the wiki community that you later regretted after much consideration?
- A: Oh, plenty. If you want an example, I would say one of my most egregious actions was "reviewing" Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) for GA. It was a month into the COVID lockdown, and I was not even extended confirmed yet. I don't think I read the entire article... A few years later I remembered I had done that review, I went to check on the article only to discover it is now a featured article. It has a happy ending, but that was a major blunder on my part.
Optional question from CanonNi
- 10. It looks like you haven't participated in AfD in a while. Are you planning to become more active in that area?
- A: I have no plans to get active in AfD, and if I were to become active it would be as a !voter, not a closer.
Optional questions from Renerpho
- 11. There are a lot of neglected areas on Wikipedia. What is it about CFD specifically that you find interesting to work on? Let's say you wanted to convince me to help out at CFD.
- A: I think I enjoy CFD because I enjoy organizing things. It is, at its most basic level, a massive venue where you get to discuss the optimal way to organize things. And as a closer, CFD is great because most discussions are really easy to close, so it is easy to get started. You don't need much experience at all to close a sane proposal with four support per nom !votes and no opposition. There are discussions ranging from that easy to sitting-and-waiting-for-weeks-for-closure-because-it-is-a-behemoth – and everything in between – so you can move from easy closes on up at your own pace. After all, there are ~30 new discussions which need closing every day. And if CFD is not for you, that is completely okay! I am a massive believer that people should edit in ways they find enjoyable (of course, provided that those ways are productive / not disruptive). There are countless other tasks which you might find enjoyable.
- 12. In relation to my first question, and (jokingly?) to your username: Would you consider yourself a deletionist?
- A: The labels deletionist and inclusionist are some of the least helpful things on Wikipedia. They encourage tribalism and are inherently comments on the person, which are both objectively bad things. Calling someone else a deletionist/inclusionist/mergist/etc. has literally never helped any discussion, ever. So I don't consider myself anything, though I would add that I dislike making broad judgements about types of pages and firmly believe ATDs are great. And my username (see Q4) just has to do with the fact that eight-year-olds think explosions are the coolest things in the world, not anything regarding the worthiness of articles (or houses) :D
Optional questions from Aszx5000
- 13. You seem a very promising candidate and heavily involved in admin-type work on Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia and had complete power like Elon Musk has with Twitter/X, what would you change?
- A: I will start by acknowledging that I wouldn't want to be a dictator of Wikipedia. With that out of the way, I guess there are two ways to interpret this question, and because both are interesting I will answer both (and for those of you keeping score at home, I still count this as one question). If I were in charge of the WMF, I would look into better supporting the editor base, especially engaging new editors. We all started somewhere, better support for newbies really helps the 'pedia grow. If I were in charge of Wikipedia's policies, my current least favorite rule is "links outside of mainspace must be treated as external links" (part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid). I got started editing by clicking the "Learn how and when to remove this message" button on a banner, so this is an issue I find important. (I promptly removed a banner while neither addressing the issue nor leaving an edit summary, but I did mark the edit as minor – in other words, not my best edit. But I still think that the point remains we should encourage more people to contribute, even if their initial contributions require cleaning up. I know this sounds crazy, but I got a template message and actually heeded its advice!)
Optional question from The Night Watch
- 14. Hi there. Wikipedia has an interesting culture with people of various backgrounds, ideologies, dispositions, and hobbies. While collaboration with others can be fun, Wikipedia is also going to suck sometimes, especially with the conflict innate to admin areas. If you had the power to change anything about our culture, what would you change? Feel free to ignore this question if you would like, it's just some philosophical musing.
- A: The Wiki Way is to change things, and yet we have this intense opposition to changing rules/procedures/etc. Sure, many of our current processes are not broken, but they could be better. I would make us more open to just trying different ways of doing things – like, for instance, the current 48 hour discussion period of RfA. The change might stink. But it might be better, and we don't know until we try.
Discussion
- Links for HouseBlaster: HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for HouseBlaster can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
- I'm incredibly happy to see this. :) HouseBlaster is pretty much the reason I'm even an admin. Their shove was the last one I needed. [1] I've also seen them doing loads of good work across the project and they often go above and beyond when interacting with newbies. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- An out-loud "Nice!!" in reaction to seeing this. Major net benefit to the project. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Good candidate and good nominators. I think they'd do fine. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Responsible for an improvement to RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- A short summary for people who weren't around almost two years ago: RfAs still lasted 7 days but people could still !vote until a bureaucrat got around to closing or starting a crat chat. This could sometimes take hours and this change fixed this arbitrary deadline. I was an enthusiastic support at the time although it was not a SNOW discussion, plenty of people opposed for various reasons. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- that RfC was
almost two years ago
? gosh, I'm old Queen of Hearts (🏳️⚧️ • 🏳️🌈) 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)- I started editing in 2018 and I feel this way too often when reading old discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Meh, that's nothing. I've been editing since 500 BC. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I started editing in 2018 and I feel this way too often when reading old discussions. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- that RfC was
- A short summary for people who weren't around almost two years ago: RfAs still lasted 7 days but people could still !vote until a bureaucrat got around to closing or starting a crat chat. This could sometimes take hours and this change fixed this arbitrary deadline. I was an enthusiastic support at the time although it was not a SNOW discussion, plenty of people opposed for various reasons. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Given the nominators and the fact that CFD is chronically backlogged (and coupled with Blaster's experience in the area), I don't see a reason against this. Best wishes with the RfA, @HouseBlaster:! (Also: great username.) --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Only ever had positive experiences with the candidate. I do hope they do more content creation; I enjoyed reviewing 1934 German head of state referendum for GA status. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Don't always agree with their actions at CfD but have found the candidate to be fairly well reasoned all things considered. Barring something unexpected coming up here, I believe they'd do well with the tools. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Undoubtable asset to the CfD team. Queen of Hearts (🏳️⚧️ • 🏳️🌈) 04:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the candidate or their work as our areas of focus don't have a lot of overlap, but from a cursorary look at their user page, I don't see a lot of content creation experience, which is totally okay. The candidate has clarified what area of the project's back end they do the most at and that area needs more admins. I fully support a trend where admins may run and be successful without content creation experience but a large focus on the neglected stuff. I look forward to hearing from the candidate and their answers to the questions! Thanks for running! microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am concerned about the lack of content creation simply because admins do get dragged into that area no matter what their initial intentions might be. This is an area of activity that's relatively easy to fix, but it is nice to see how a potential admin behaves "under fire" (so to speak) when dealing with content creation (and related areas like AfD, where at least they have been active in the past).Intothatdarkness 13:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I share your concern about minimal main space participation (28%). Articles started are two stubs, a start and a D-page. And they are active in AfD. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Intothatdarkness: They have a GA: 1934 German head of state referendum. Does that resolve your concerns? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- One GA is not enough. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- While we're waiting for the voting to start, here's some fish, chips, mushy peas and tartare sauce for the candidate and the other Wikipedians in this room to enjoy... I don't see any issues myself at the present time, I see the content query above which is often a red line for me, but probably between their GA and other contributions such as 2014 Northern Cape provincial election - a stub but an adequately cited stub - I'd give them the weak nod on that score that they know what they're doing, given the attestation of good work elsewhere. We'll see how this pans out though. — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Back a few months House Blaster took the time from their work at contributing to the Encyclopedia to nominate a fellow editor for the Editor of the Week award. To me it displays a hint into his social awareness. An important trait to have if one wants to administrate. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 18:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Be sure to rest well tonight. Watch some movies with friends or gaze up at the stars. That helped me on the final few days at least. Good luck. The Night Watch (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- This pre-!vote period of the trial RfA process is partly for bringing up potential issues, so that's what I'm going to do here. I've interacted a lot with the candidate, and have always found him to be collegial, even when we have differing views, and I appreciate that. But I've also noted some instances where he shows what I perceive as a rigid approach to doing things, along with difficulty in recognizing how other editors might react to what he says. First, there is this entirely well-meaning, but cringeworthy, post: [2]. Second, there is the very lengthy discussion here: [3]. By the end of that second discussion, I actually came around to accepting HouseBlaster's approach, so I don't think that he was technically wrong. But it seemed to me that he was operating under a rigid definition of The RulesTM, rather than showing deference to what other editors might prefer. I want to make clear that he wasn't, strictly speaking, wrong in either of these two examples. But I note that some other editors have commented above about there not being much content experience, and when I take that along with the two instances I link to here, I think there could be a potential issue in this RfA, of not having the right kind of attentiveness to interpersonal nuance that many editors want to see demonstrated in an RfA. Feel free to reply to my comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know if I'm missing something, but I see nothing objectionable in the second discussion, which seems to be respectful and constructive on all sides. The first comment is the kind of thing many of us might say and then later feel a bit embarrassed about; again, I don't see any concerns here. Others may have different views, of course. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding the second discussion (in which I participated), which was about replacing presentational markup of bold and italics with semantic markup, personally I don't think it's an issue of deference, but appreciating there can be differing opinions on what best reflects the semantics of a sentence, and that the cost-benefit ratio for some discussions increases rapidly as the thread continues. I hope that all participants in the second discussion found value in it that will help future collaborative efforts (personally, I found it instructive). isaacl (talk) 21:58, 16 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.