Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
ToadetteEdit	0	0	0	0	Open	12:21, 6 May 2024	6 days, 15 hours	no	report

Current time is 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
ToadetteEdit	0	0	0	0	Open	12:21, 6 May 2024	6 days, 15 hours	no	report

Current time is 20:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC). —

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 and it 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

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99
The Night Watch	RfA	Successful	11 Feb 2024	215	63	13	77
Red-tailed hawk	RfA	Successful	5 Jan 2024	207	6	8	97

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). 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 and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.

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

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". 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

Current time is 20:49:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

ToadetteEdit

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 12:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs) – I am applying for sysop rights so that I can expand my capabilities. I have 10000 edits, here for almost a year and created six articles (excluded draftings and deleted ones.) I've addressed the issues raised on my talk page but I am interested in closing XfDs and working at wp:UAA in addition to block users who triggered edit filters disruptively as well as to bypass restrictions during XfD work and AfC work. I have patroller, rollbacker and reviewer rights. There is a recent shortage of admins as documented by The Signpost stories. I also gained positive feedback from others, so I devided to kick off this nomination. I have never edited for pay and owned two accounts, this one and the other called "Unleashedwiki" which I abandoned due to confused credentials following a rename.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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 am interest for applying for the sysop kit to better close XfDs. This venue is often understaffed and needs more admins, so I'm throwing my hat in. I really wanted to clear the backlog more efficiently by actually deleting pages and having the noratelimit (I get hit by this when relisting a discussion with many nominated pages). I am also in handy in reporting usernames at wp:UAA so this is my next area of focus. In addition, I will also work at wp:AIV/TB2 and block editors who triggered the edit filter disruptively. While not frequently, I will also help out at wp:AIV, wp:RFPP and wp:PERM

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My best contributions are attaining a DYK on Adly Mansour Transportation Hub (appeared on main page 2024/01/30) and having my ITN recognition on an article that I have updated. These are my best contributions to date, but in the backstage is my reviews of AfC drafts (I have reviewed more than 300 drafts in the last week) and I am leaning a lot from AfC. (Wikipedia desperately needs more and more articles and there are potentially notable, suitable topics.)

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Yes, many, many times including a pblock from wp:ANI (I've learnt from the issues that led to this and never edited ANI at all since then (and not willingly to edit the page even after this), a copyvio on Regional Ring Road (Egypt), creation of a topic about Crypto Aid Israel, closing certain discussions at XfDs (AfD, CfD, FfD, and TfD), and others which I don't remember but I know these mistakes now and won't repeat the same issues again. I've resolved the mistakes and is unlikely for these to be taken to ANI but I also know that I won't be echoing the same mistake so to not lose the respect of the community.

---

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 ARandomName123

4. Hi, ToadetteEdit, and thanks for running! In your recently closed RfA candidate poll, you stated that you were not planning until at least 6mo later. What has changed to drive you to request adminship a week later?

A:Noticed that the title "CaseOh" is salted provoked my mind to apply for adminship, sensing my need for the tools and to bypass any restrictions

Follow-up: Thanks for the response. I noticed CaseOh was just salted a few days ago. You stated that you would use the tools to "bypass any restrictions". Could you please clarify why you feel the need to bypass the salt? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I don't want to bypass salts, but my account is restricted by the software to perform some actions, including recreating salted titles (not planning to do so)

Ah ok, I think I understand what you mean. Thanks for the responses! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Toadspike

5. Your userpage has a template reading: "This user is in school. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while. They will be back on Wikipedia when school is over." It seems that you added this template in November 2023 and it has been there ever since. [1] Does the text of this template still accurately reflect your ability to contribute to Wikipedia? Toadspike (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have finished my year of school so I must have removed the template; however despite the administration announced that I would [immediately] return back for another year lasting till December, it won't impact my editing, while also taking periodic wikibreaks.

Optional questions from Ixtal

6. Your AfD stats are weighted heavily towards deletion (link) and mentioned deleting pages as one of your main motivations for seeking adminship. How do you see Wikipedia's deletion processes within Wikipedia's purpose and mission? This is not a question about inclusionism vs. deletionism and would appreciate if you could avoid mentioning those philosophies.

I see deletion as the purpose that Wikipedia should not host indiscriminate content, or topics which are not notable. Wikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia but not host every single topic out there (eg. a bio well known in a village but nowhere else.

7. Please choose a moment in your editing career where your behaviour was most unbecoming of an editor, or otherwise exhibited bad judgement in an administration-related area, and describe how you would correct the mistake if the event took place when you have the mop.

The worst moment would be closing controversial AfDs, if I would have gottten the mop, then I would correct it by overturning the discussion/amending it to make sure it meets the demand of the other editors.

Optional question from CanonNi

8. Hello ToadetteEdit, you mentioned that you were pblocked from ANI. Looking at the block log, it seems that the reason was "clerking". Could you expand on the situation? Thanks.

A:The situation is the event of several concerns raised in the first archive, I had been making unnecessary comments and closing routine threads (one editor described one of the comments as an unnecesary interruption). After a promised I have nonetheless returned closing several threads and replying to one.

Optional question from NoobThreePointOh

9. Hi, Toadette. I've been noticing the questions from other users about you not planning until 6mo later. I also saw Ingenuity's comment below and they said that you didn't have a single GA (even though you do have a DYK and ITN recognition, I myself don't have a GA, but am getting some later). How come the sudden change of plans and no GA?

A:See answer to Q4.

Optional questions from Girth Summit

10. This question concerns your answer to Q4 above. You saw that CaseOh was salted, and you want admin tools to bypass that restriction. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CaseOh closed just a couple of weeks ago with a consensus to delete. I assume that you consider the subject to be notable - can you explain your grounds for thinking this?

A:At first, I saw this page and thought why not accept it? I didn't reviewed the then draft until a now blocked sock accepted it. I can know that this passes notability, but today after seeing that the article was salted, I reminded about how salting is bad.

11. Can you also explain how you will use the tools with regards to this article if they are granted by the community?

A: I know that I won't recreate it or unsalt it, but knowing that I won't abuse my tools, I will use the tools in a manner that I wont perform anything that is against consensus and that I should discuss it in an appropriate venue.

Optional question from Hobit

12. I'm guessing English isn't your native language--looking over your contributions I'm seeing a lot of grammar errors and the like. I'm finding I can follow what you are saying, but that I occasionally have to read things a couple of times. To your knowledge has this ever contributed to communication issues with others here? Hobit (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologize a bit, my initial languages are English and Arabic, but at the time, I didn't speak English frequently until I attended an American school. I do not speak Arabic that well anyway, and English is my primary language online.

Optional question from RoySmith

13. First, thank you for stepping up and offering to be an admin. It can be a difficult job and we need more volunteers who are willing to take this responsibility on. My question is about WP:INVOLVED. This is something which often comes up in discussions about actions an admin has taken and it's not uncommon to have reasonable and cogent arguments on both sides of the question. Could you talk a bit about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would go about determining if it applied to you in some particular situation? This is kind of an open-ended question; there's no right or wrong answer, I'm mostly interested in how you would approach the issue.

A:

Optional questions from Cremastra

14. Thanks for standing for adminship. Here's a hypothetical situation: it's some time in the future, and you're a fairly experienced administrator. You check WP:AFD, and you see there's an old discussion with minimal participation that's been relisted twice. One person wants to delete the article, saying although there are many sources here, (and I'm not doubting their reliability), there isn't enough significant coverage—in fact, most of the sources are just databases! Delete this article per WP:SIGCOV. The other participant wants to keep the article, saying Although no individual source has detailed coverage, and many are databases, there is clearly enough information out there to write an article, since this article is well-sourced and is moderately long (two sections, about 150 words). Keep per WP:IAR and the spirit of WP:N. What do you do? Do you a) relist the discussion for a third time; b) close the discussion as "no consensus" (de facto keep); c) close as "delete"; or d) close as "keep"?

A:

15. If you could make one change to Wikipedia's policies on notability/deletion, what would it be? Or do you think the current policies and guidelines are perfect as they are now?

A:

Discussion

• Links for ToadetteEdit: ToadetteEdit (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ToadetteEdit can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Support

Voting opens at 12:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.

Oppose

Voting opens at 12:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.

Neutral

Voting opens at 12:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.

General comments

• Fair play on being the first one into the barrel Toadette!  :) And the self-nom to boot. Signs of strength of character required in a good admin I think.
  Am slightly leary about the chronology though. You joined in May 2023. In late Aug Bbb23 p/blocked you from ANI for unnecessary clerking—which was never appealed?—which expired in late November. So that was five months ago. Altogether, it works out at ~eight months of unblocked tenure. Is that long enough for adminship? I'm also not so keen on the >58% automated edits, although the >97% edit summary usage is a plus.
  Incidentally, while I can see the commendability in avoiding ANI after the block, I don't think the community wants assurances that you are not "willingly to edit the page even after this": It's more important that you demonstrate you can return to ANI and not clerk—this shows the issue has not just been addressed, but resolved. On the other hand, not editing there again avoids the problem and provides no real reassurances. And it would be odd to nominate an administrator on the platform that they don't want to edit an administrator noticeboard.
  On the other hand, you edit exsively in PIA areas and have successfully avoided appearance at AE, which demonstrates a sureness of footing yet also a certain delicacy of interaction. Again, an excellent sign. ——Serial Number 54129 13:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the positive feedback. Toadette^Edit! 13:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129, you seem to have pasted the edit summary link twice, which broke the external link. Toadspike (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that Toadette's pre-RfA tenure is unusually short, but I don't think that should count against them. I'm sure the partial block will be discussed at length by others. On the positive side, I was surprised to see that the majority of the "automated edits" are reversions or antivandal tools, followed by over 600 edits with AfC helpers. These are not content edits, which many RfA voters value highly, but (without having checked the quality of each contributions) they are still admirable areas of work. Toadspike (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• What happened to "not planning until 1.5 years later"? I do not think you are ready for adminship at this point. Your block from ANI expired less than six months ago. You have no good or featured content, and an article that was deleted only six months ago as promotional. You have a number of sections on your talk page questioning your closures from the last week alone, including one from yesterday where you reverted your own close. Thank you for putting yourself forward, but I think you would benefit from more experience before becoming an admin. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  What did you mean that the Crypto Aid Israel topic was promotional. To me it wasn't in a promotional/flowery language. Toadette^Edit! 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Seconding. Just a month ago (or two, now) issues around COI edit requests were brought to your attention. Similar to your pblock from ANI, your initial response was that you were discouraged from working that area further. At the same time, I brought up an issue with your work at AfC/CfD, because you were accepting inappropriate categories and when CATDEF was cited, indicated you had no knowledge of it. Again you expressed discouragement and that you would avoid working the area. Yesterday I saw an AFD relist on my watchlist that I felt really wasn't necessarily, and see your talk page has several AFD NACs being questioned, some you've self-reverted. It's too soon for RFA here. Everything seems to revolve around "too quick" clerking. -- ferret (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  This right here. Too many unnecessary relists on WP:XFD forums. Will need to take more care when working discussions; it is okay for a discussion to sit for a bit if it requires actual admin intervention, especially if the result is clear per relevant guidelines such as WP:SILENCE. The perceived desire to rush things on these boards without proper assessment is a major source of concern. Steel1943 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  "unnecessary relists"? Can you list some of them? I didn't realised that my relists are unnecessary. Toadette^Edit! 15:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  For example, a little more than half of your relists at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 27 qualified for WP:SILENCE. (There are others, but that's all I have time to point out now.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Hey Toadette! You're very brave to be the first person to try the new RfA system, and I commend that for you. I've seen you around, and it's always good to have a very active AfC reviewer. However, I think you're rushing into things. That has always been the way you edited, and that is why you were p-blocked from ANI. Remember, being an admin (and just doing the RfA in general) places you under a lot of scrutiny. I think that the best part about your editing is your bravery to try new things, which is great if you're a new editor and senior editors can help, but not so good if the community has placed its trust in you with the mop. Good luck with your run! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC) ^{I am quite liking this only-general-comments thing!}

  Thanks for the positive feedback. Toadette^Edit! 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  • I'm going to do my shtick (later on), because I hope a bit of sugar will make the medicine go down in a more delightful way, but there is a seriousness behind my silliness. I agree with asparagusus, you are a bit green, which is good, in addition to being a plant based Wikipedian, I think adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL, but this is too soon. With another year or two of generally good editing and even tempered interactions with our trolls and newbies you'll be ready for the mop. <shtick>And some plant editing! You need to propitiate the all important Plantipedia voting block. I'm not backing you until you create at least one plant article or plant article accessory.</shtick> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• I assume that even a withdrawal or whatever is called for (and that discussion should take place here, Moneytrees), there should be no compunction about the candidate not doing so—if they choose—until the discussion period is up. To do so earlier—indeed, to call for them to do so—would effectively negate the whole point of the discussion period. In a new system, the tired old remarks should cease to apply. ——Serial Number 54129 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I mean...to be fair...a few months off a block is a hard sell. GMG^talk 14:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely, GMG... "No-one ever said it was gonna be easy"  :) ——Serial Number 54129 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Major kudos for daring to run the gauntlet, and on a self-nom at that. However... I think you should wait, both to put in more rank & file service on the project, and also to put more time between yourself and that block. I haven't looked at your metrics or any other details yet, though I have seen you around and think you're doing good work. I therefore have no doubt that one day you can and will get the mop, but if I were to !vote now, I'd likely oppose per not quite yet. Sorry, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Too soon, I think. It's great that we can give feedback during this pre-discussion. Please read and heed the feedback so far received. Eventually, though, I think withdrawal would be best. Probably wait till a year after the pblock thing. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  The salting thing is one of several examples of lack of readiness. There are more. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• " I didn't reviewed the then draft until a now blocked sock accepted it. I can know that this passes notability, but today after seeing that the article was salted, I reminded about how salting is bad." and other comments in this RfA make me wonder if the editor is fluent enough in English to communicate well enough in an administrative role. Fram (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, these were my thoughts too. I'm still not sure they wanted to happen / want to happen in the CaseOh matter, despite a clarifying question. Turini2 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I also think this answer leaves it unclear that the user understands Notability at all. An AFD was closed for a repeatedly recreated target, and a sysop salted it. This user has decided to run for RfA essentially because they were, apparently, reviewing yet another submission of this article and found that they could not accept the draft. This feeds into other comments, that the editor does not research the history of things before taking action on them. -- ferret (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In an earlier iteration of TE's userpage, they said they could contribute in English at a "professional level". Kinda makes you wonder.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Their current userpage says Language proficiency: en, en-us-5 ar-4, fr-1. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I missed that - I was looking at userboxes, not cats. None of it makes any sense, at least not to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• You're off to a good start with maintenance work, Toadette, but I agree with others that this is way too soon. To add to the examples given up, your sudden decision to move dozens of templates used by the PageCuration without discussion does not speak to the level of care an admin needs to have. – Joe (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've replied enough here so will let this be my last, but am I following correctly that they simply stopped replying to that discussion and still did not revert when asked? -- ferret (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• ToadetteEdit, I would really urge you to consider withdrawing. Whether you agree with it or not, it's obvious that the consensus here is that this RfA is very premature. Your ORCP said much the same thing, and (sorry to be blunt) I can't help but think that when !voting opens, your candidacy is going to get shot down in an unforgiving way. If you really feel compelled to see this through to a !vote then no-one's stopping you, but I'd strongly advise you to listen to the multiple experienced editors/RfA participants telling you otherwise. Giraffer (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• I'd fall into the too soon camp, sadly. The block is concerning, and I'm also one who prefers to see a bit of content creation or substantive editing first. Work on that and communication (I, too, was concerned about language proficiencyadmins have to be able to communicate clearly), and the next time around should be better. Intothatdarkness 16:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• So, the candidate is saying that the reason they applied for adminship is because CaseOh is salted, yet they don't want to unsalt the article and simply want to bypass all restrictions. If that's true, what else do they want adminship for? What other desired action is currently being restricted? This doesn't make sense for me. Mox Eden (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Mox Eden, they also seem to want it to move Draft:K. Annamalai - which is salted, title-blacklisted, listed at WP:DEEPER, and has a clear WP:DRV-endorsed path to recreation - directly into mainspace unilaterally ([2]). I am sensing a pattern here. Curbon7 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Honestly, the block issue from AN/I is probably the big issue I find, more than anything else. It was, granted, about half a year ago at this point, but a 3-month long block from an area that admins are expected to routinely respond at (see WP:ADMINACCT) is more than a little concerning. I don't think this is a bad candidacy, but the block is concerning. Further, in question 8 they are asked about the block, and all that is given is a base summary, but nothing about why the editor was unnecessarily clerking ANI. Being able to explain one's actions, sometimes in depth (see the entirety of ArbCom), is an essential quality for an administrator. Their comment about wanting sysop to bypass a salt isn't really concerning to me, just seems like a slightly odd reason to request the tools, but I don't see it as invalid either. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Right now, it's best to listen to experienced editors. They've already made a decision, and most people are likely to vote against you. Many senior editors think it's too early for you to become an Admin, especially since your block ended just six months ago. My advice: back off or expect negative votes. Grabup (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Not impressed by this copyright infringement from less than a year ago [though I see now that they've mentioned it above], nor by how they left what remained as an unreferenced, single sentence substub in mainspace until today. —Cryptic 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Was not impressed by this DRV submission, which was very ill-judged. When challenged by numerous editors, including directly as a reply, failed to show up to defend their position. This would be a strong oppose for lack of experience and capabilities from me. Daniel (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks for volunteering and I applaud the self-nom. With less than a year on Wiki and some of the other things noted above, maybe best to wait another year? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• I first thought this is the "1 election" trial run of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 13: Admin elections, but it's just Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I thought the same as you TBF. Also, according to the note at WP:RFA the two day discussion period excludes "those closed as WP:SNOW and WP:TOOSOON", which is where I think this RFA is headed. S0091 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I also support the too soon rationale. Even though I don't judge a user on the basis of editcount, but 11 months and 10k edits do not present an experienced front to the wider community. The language proficiency is not a deal breaker for me, but the sysop toolset comes with a myriad of tools and very few AIV and ARV experience and multiple mistakes even for relisting AfD show inexperience in anti vandalism and consensus determination respectively. I'd suggest to wait and gather more experience in other areas where admins perform and come back after you get more xp points. Good luck and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• I have published a post on my talk. I can't consider these further. Toadette^Edit! 18:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  This looked painful. Sorry you went through that, and I hope you bounce back. One good takeaway: no one here doubts your good faith or your commitment to the Encyclopedia. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Moral support, ToadetteEdit. You were brave to test the new system. I echo Floq: everyone here can see your good faith and commitment. Valereee (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

---

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.