Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfA)

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, 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.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 120 0 1 100 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 20:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Worm That Turned 120 0 1 100 Open 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 20:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

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.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 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

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91
FOARP AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 268 106 242 72
Peaceray AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 270 107 239 72
Sohom Datta AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 298 108 210 73
DoubleGrazing AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 104 206 75
SD0001 AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 101 209 75
Ahecht AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 303 94 219 76
Dr vulpes AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 322 99 195 76
Rsjaffe AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 319 89 208 78
ThadeusOfNazereth AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 321 88 207 78
SilverLocust AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 347 74 195 82
Queen of Hearts AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 389 105 122 79

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] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

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.[3] 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".[4] 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.

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 20:20:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Worm That Turned

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (120/0/1); Scheduled to end 09:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) – A little over 13 years ago, three years after I began editing, I nominated myself for adminship, and was successful. Since that time, I have filled a number of roles on the encyclopaedia, largely behind the scenes, most prominently as a member of the Arbitration Committee for 8 of those 13 years, but also oversight, checkuser & bureaucrat. I strongly believe that the administrator toolbox should not be a lifetime appointment, and had always intended to reconfirm at some point, and circumstances have come together to make that possible here.

Wikipedia is a volunteer role, and real life should always come first. So, regarding my current circumstances - I recognised that my time for Wikipedia was significantly limited by my work. My role has unexpectedly changed this year, and I now have time again. As such, I have decided to stand for re-election to the Arbitration Committee, and fulfil my commitment that I would reconfirm my adminship if I wanted the tools back, despite being within WP:RESYSOP limits. However you choose to !vote on this reconfirmation RfA, I would appreciate any comments you would like to make, which I will take on board and refer back to in the future.

Now that that's covered, I'd like to talk about some of my highlights on Wikipedia. From a content perspective, I have written 2 Featured and 30 Good articles, slightly over half were about women in history, a group of people who are underrepresented on Wikipedia. From a community perspective, I spent years running the historic adopt a user program, personally adopting 35 users. From a meta perspective, I have strong opinions on adminship and have spent years helping reform the process of becoming and leaving being an administrator. On the Arbitration Committee, I've made tough decisions, drafted cases, managed community crises and pushed for major, essential reform. Throughout, I've tried to keep Wikipedians at the heart of everything I do.

I'm not, by any means, perfect. I'd love to hear your questions, here, on my talk page or by email if you'd like a protracted conversation. I have never edited for pay, though I have received swag as part of my volunteering over the past 15 years. I have a few alternate accounts, all currently dormant, all easy to identify as me and all declared on my user page. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I do accept. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: As much as I believe that non-administrators should be able to join the Arbitration Committee, I am also pragmatically aware how useful the administrator toolset is when sitting on the committee, not least by being able to see deleted edits in particular. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I've covered some of my highlights above, and I talk about what I'm proud of on my user page, but for this question, I'd like to dive into my two featured articles. Doom Bar, a topic which I was inspired to write about based on a beer mat (I was drinking Doom Bar before it was a national beer!) - I really learned about research and investigation in creating the article. Sabrina Sidney on the other hand, was a topic that simply didn't seem real, and was fascinating to read about. I encourage everyone to read the article. I am not a talented writer, my background is mathematics, so I have found the featured article process very stressful - but worth it.
The edit I am most proud of, however, is this one. It was a time that our WMF relationship was significantly different, budgets were king and pressure needed to be applied. Although most of the work was done behind the scenes, and I was only a part of it - I believe that edit was important in moving WP:Child Protection from community to WMF responsibility. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 have. I've had to make tough decision on the committee, been the face of those tough decision. I've taken issue with the behaviour of administrators on and off the committee and dealt with it directly. I've managed the stress by taking regular breaks, identifying my personal signs of burn out and stepping back before then, and encouraging feedback from other community members to see if I'm acting out of line. WormTT(talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from an IP user

4. Some administrators believe that it is a good practice to "procedurally" decline "stale" unblock requests based solely on the fact that no admin cared to attend to them for an extended period of time. What are your thoughts on that subject? Do you recall ever procedurally declining a stale unblock request?
A: I have not, and would not procedurally declined a stale unblock request simply based time, unless other factors were involved. Personally, I do not believe unblock requests should be procedurally declined unless the request no longer has relevance, e.g. the block is no longer in force, or a subsequent community discussion has required the block to stay in place.
On the flip side, however, if an unblock request has been hanging around a while and has not persuaded any administrator to unblock - it is likely that the request does not meet the requirements for unblocking. I can therefore understand the logic of administrators who do follow the "procedural" or "light touch" closure of these requests. The problem is that without giving feedback to the request, the blocked individual has less chance to be properly unblocked and therefore re-integrate with the community. Those few helpful words in declining an unblock request could make a big difference long term. WormTT(talk) 14:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from GTrang

5. Why are you doing a full reconfirmation RfA instead of making a resysop request at WP:BN?
A: Thank you for asking this GTrang, as I do appreciate I'm taking the community's time up with this request. I've been around on Wikipedia for a long time, and spent a lot of time working around WP:RfA. Many years ago, two administrators decided to run through a reconfirmation RfA, HJ Mitchell and SarekOfVulcan. To this day, I wish more administrators did that, and always intended to do so around my 10 year adminship anniversary - however I found myself "busy" with duties that I didn't want to risk.
In January, when I stood down as an admin, I committed to a reconfirmation. I genuinely expected to be unavailable for 2-5 years at the time so I would either come back sooner and run a reconfirmation RfA, or later and need to run an RfA anyway. I'm not one to back down on a commitment, so here I am.
My strongest hope for this RfA is to be given feedback, be it areas I can improve or things I'm doing well. Unfortunately, the anonymous voting at SecurePoll during an election doesn't offer that. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from GreenMeansGo

6. Mayo or Miracle Whip? This will decide my !vote.
A: To the best of my knowledge, I have never tasted Miracle Whip. I did not know of Miracle Whip until this question. Mayonnaise has its place, especially in some sandwiches - it pairs very well with Bacon in a BLT (one of my most controversial Good Articles), and is essential in egg mayonnaise, but I'm not an autocondimentor, and it's rare that mayonnaise would be my condiment of choice. Therefore, I believe my answer is "neither". WormTT(talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Martinp

7. Welcome back. While technically you resigned as admin 10 months ago, you've been generally less active (as admin and editor) for 1-2 years. Nothing at all wrong with that, but as you become more active again, what are some of the biggest changes you see in norms, processes, or culture at EN:WP that have occurred during your "break"? These may be changes you will adapt to, or ones you will strive to change, that's up to you.
A: This question, and Dianaa's below, are excellent and exactly what we should be asking in this sort of scenario. The biggest changes I've seen is around Admin Elections and Recall - less about what they mean for the community, as we've had ideas like them mooted for years, but more that these long term perennial proposals have actually happened. That shows a marked shift in the community in the past year - is it numbers of people watching, apathy or willingness to try something new? I'm trying work that out myself at the moment.
I've seen that conflict that has been apparent in the wider world has reflected itself on Wikipedia - there's no surprise there, but it's happening, and does need to be watched - interestingly it does mean that previous battlegrounds are being re-visited. I see that there's technical changes that I'm happy about, things like a simple new Speedy category for C4, or the Global vanish button, something that is very important to me because vanishing was the reason I became a 'crat.
There are outside factors that are worrying, such as the Asian News International fiasco. Indeed, the encyclopedia is always changing - and I will endeavour to change with it. WormTT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Diannaa

8. I see you haven't edited much in the last couple years. Could you please describe what efforts you have made to make sure your knowledge of admin work is up to date? Thanks.
A: Up until September 2023, I was about as active as I ever was, maybe not making edits, but I was responding to emails and reading my watchlist on a day to day basis. I stepped down from Arbcom because I couldn't keep up at that pace. It's difficult to evidence that, of course. I quickly realised that without the information coming to me, I needed to go looking for it, and that's where I didn't have time - leading to me stepping down from all administrative roles.
To get back to the swing of things, I've been reading. A lot. The Administrators Newsletter is my go-to starting point, but also the Signpost, noticeboard archives. I've discussed "what I've missed" with a few colleagues, finding out key points. Some I knew about beforehand, some I didn't. Some I could have predicted, some not. No matter what, I've been reading - bringing myself up to speed on topics is something I got pretty good at on Arbcom over the years. WormTT(talk) 19:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Andrew D.

9. The article Even a worm will turn gives some history of the phrase, which goes back to Shakespeare and beyond. Please explain or elaborate on your reasons for choosing it as your account name. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hawkeye7

10. Do you intend to have a reconfirmation for bureaucrat?
A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obvs. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yep. Benison (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Chetsford (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. no-brainer. Nobody (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I am familiar with this editor and great work both as an editor and an admin.. - tucoxn\talk 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support No concerns Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't think that Vermes is obsolete. Polygnotus (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - absolute no brainer. GiantSnowman 10:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Toadspike [Talk] 10:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ratekreel (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Sam Sailor 10:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, per nom. - Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Leijurv (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support – 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Obviously. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. This is a pretty easy one :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. The candidate has my trust. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Coeusin (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support checking recent admin actions, they all appear to be warranted. Though I would put a question mark over the upload of File:Camel Estuary 1825 and 2010.png which had to have its size reduced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that feedback @Graeme Bartlett. It was actually worse than that - I had originally uploaded to commons, and moved it to WP after the violation there was pointed out. I will certainly endeavour to be more vigilant of the same in future - especially as I used to teach it to others!! WormTT(talk) 11:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Easy. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 11:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, no brainer. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. To ArbCom you go, good luck. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support WTT is, without exaggeration, the single biggest reason I am still around on any of the Wikimedia spaces. I have thought about the WP:ADOPTion pages he created often, both as a 'gold standard' of "This is what we should aim for" as well as looking up info for my own benefit. He's consistently been the voice of reason, and sometimes the sole voice of reason. I'm glad to see The Worm That Returned and hope to see him in Arbcom. Oh and I guess we have WTT to thank for WP:AELECT. Soni (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Daniel (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Happy to have you back! Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - another no brainer. 13 new admins this month, wow. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, precious. That would be enough, but you also made my #1 edit, in 2015. (The #2 edit followed in 2023, by Maddy from Celeste.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support - Donald Albury 12:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strongly charlotte 👸♥📱 12:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. i think it's safe to say this is a trustworthy user lol ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support DanCherek (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support: No questions from me. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Good to have you back. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Wham2001 (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Should probably have used the BN reappointment process Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedure reappointment process to save some community time here. More efficient. Anyway, welcome back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that this RFA was technically optional for WTT as he simply could have asked (and received) the bits back. I suspect if he wants the 'crat bits back he'll just ask. Primefac (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh he was a crat too? I didn't know that. Edited my original comment for clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, misunderstood. Just noting that at resignation he did say he would go this route (though I suspect he thought it would be a couple of years before!). Primefac (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support obviously, but always great to see that extra bit of community accountability rather than a simple reappointment! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  44. —Kusma (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Has not lost community trust since last time. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. —Ingenuity (t • c) 13:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. To quote Cullen328, "whenever I have seen your signature, it was preceded by wise words". That's a high compliment, and one I very much agree with. --rchard2scout (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Absolute no brainer. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yeah ~ LindsayHello 13:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. JPG-GR (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. AKAF (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Skynxnex (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Duh. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Calm voice of reason. Binksternet (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Glad to see you're willing to serve again. Wikipedia needs adults to be in the room. Geoff | Who, me? 13:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Dave is a good spud. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Easy support. This is not a necessary RfA, of course, but the question here is "would this editor having the administrative toolkit be a net positive?" and the answer, based on over a decade of evidence of hard work, cluefulness, and decency, is "absolutely." Welcome back. 28bytes (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Armbrust The Homunculus 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, obviously — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 13:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support, absolutely. GoodnightmushTalk 14:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Duh. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support trusted user. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support instant yes. Blythwood (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. No other comments needed, really; I trust the candidate, especially given that he is a longstanding former admin and bureaucrat. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support (ec X2) Really not necessary, but happy to support anyway. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70. supportThanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. No issues. Llwyld (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Most of my experience seeing WTT around has been in their capacity as an Arb, and in my opinion they did an exemplary job in that role; I'm pleased to see that they're looking to pick up the mop again. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Not sure why this is here instead of the standard request at BN, but sure. WTT is excellent. Folly Mox (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Yes, please! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --v/r - TP 14:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - Not necessary, no big deal. FOARP (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support for sure. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - strongest possible based on editing and admin history. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Consummate professional who I would trust with my life. — GhostRiver 16:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support of course. Wikipedia was the poorer when WTT left and their return can only improve things. Neiltonks (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Can't very well criticize a voluntary reconfirmation RFA, can I? Although this one is pretty much a 100% foregone conclusion, so maybe not quite as ... interesting. Anyway, zero concerns. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  85. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, especially for the well-written and objectively correct answer to Q6. ;) NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Welcome back. – bradv 16:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Happy he's back. My biggest question mark about Worm is why he made the "binding" statement he did when he turned in the tools - feels in real contrast to his statement at ACE of being a voice of reason. But I do know he's a voice of reason and I do have immense respect for him as an arb, an admin, and a person. We're lucky to have him return to our community and despite that knit I've picked, am very happy to have him back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe my statement was "binding" on the community, but rather a "commitment" to myself and my beliefs - I believe in reconfirmation, I believe in feedback and I believe in self improvement. WormTT(talk) 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of editor time - which I find among our most precious of commodities - this is a very expensive way to get feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to disagree with you there @Barkeep49. I'm not the best use case, as this RfA is showing, however - one of our biggest problems on Wikipedia is editor retention, and that's the reason that the time is such a precious commodity. The most important factor in volunteer retention is motivation. We as a community are not good at encouraging motivation. If administrators felt welcomed to do reconfirmation RfAs, then not only would they get feedback for areas that they may be failing, but also they would get positive feedback on areas that they are not. No one is "required" to participate in this RfA, so I struggle to agree that it is "expensive". WormTT(talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Easy confirmation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - Happy to see you around again! ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 17:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Yes! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Always viewed WTT as a sensible voice of reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Can't think of any rationale befitting the occasion, honestly. Not even for a joke oppose. JavaHurricane 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - nbd Mujinga (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Hi, I don't think we've met. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support An admin only keeping the tools if they have the support of the community—this is almost a foreign concept on Wikipedia. I wish more admins had this integrity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, I've always had a great respect for WTT, although very little if any interaction between us.-Gadfium (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  101. It's only a waste of time if we all spend our time arguing about how it's a waste of time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Never had a significant problem with WTT, which I cannot say for several others with the Admin bit. If someone is on ArbCom, it seems to me that a) Adminship should be automatically granted or b) All such information should be made public. I for one do not like decisions made with secret evidence. I'm ok with a LITTLE redacted info to protect PII or other sensitive data, but everyone should be able to look at the evidence presented and draw a similar, reasoned conclusion. I'm ok with a or b, but not c) keep things status quo. Buffs (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  104. With deep respect for WTT, and while echoing Barkeep's sentiment that In terms of editor time - which I find among our most precious of commodities - this is a very expensive way to get feedback. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Must support the Wyrm, of course, even though I've always believed in the idea of having at least one non-admin on ArbCom. At least I will be exercising my other RFA hobbyhorse: I love a self-nom! Bishonen | tålk 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  106. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, seems good. mwwv converse∫edits 18:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support – Kudos for the decision to go through RfA rather than a simple WP:RESYSOP. I've always had a lot of respect for Worm, and the decision to request community consensus to regain the mop only heightens that respect. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Fantastic to see you back. If you want feedback, my only suggestion would be that you spend some time in the mainspace and in the trenches as an admin. It's been a while since you did either and things change. Arbs sometimes have to sit in judgement of their fellow editors and admins so it is beneficial for them to understand those people's realities. Also, thanks for reminding me about my reconfirmation, now 13 years ago! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @HJ Mitchell. You're right, I do need to get back to the front line. I've been quietly getting back into researching and editing since coming back, reminding myself of cite templates and general principles there. I'll be checking out the noticeboards and participating there a bit in the near future too. WormTT(talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Schazjmd (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Arguments from the neutral or oppose section do not convince me. Obvious support.--A09|(talk) 19:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Thought you were an admon TBH, ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  113. support. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Station1 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Frostly (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: The community got it right the first time. Glad you're back. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Welcome back Worm. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support SportingFlyer T·C 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Axios! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support No apparent issues, welcome back. EPIC (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
  1. Waste of time. Please ask at WP:BN instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the nomination statement: I strongly believe that the administrator toolbox should not be a lifetime appointment, and had always intended to reconfirm at some point, and circumstances have come together to make that possible here. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MSGJ: Based on WTT's resignation statement, which states I'll note here that I intend this to be permanent, and should I wish admin / crat rights again, I will do so through the RfA / RfB processes., they waived their ability to ask at WP:BN. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the crats can determine, at the time of a re-request, if it "by request" is an option. My non-crat opinion is that it is a stretch to call what happened "under a cloud". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they certainly did not resign under a cloud, and I believe that they were in good standing at the time of their resignation. I'm now wondering whether there's precedence of someone saying "don't give me the tools back without RfA", later asking for them back, and it being granted or denied. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh. Potentially very recently. Over the summer when I was dealing with mental health problems, I said on my talk that I didn't expect to return for 2-5 years and probably with a reconfirmation RfA. The reason I didn't go through with it was because I was improving and I was concerned that I would waste the community's time by doing so. Like with Harrias. It's kind of moot now that my resysop request processed last week, but I really think that the whole idea of reconfirmation being a waste of time is silly. Fathoms Below (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the only issue is that WTT didn't need to come to RfA, then IMO we don't have an issue. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General comments

About RfB

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

Shortcut

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.

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1256738052"