Page extended-protected

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"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.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sdrqaz 66 0 0 100 Open 15:47, 25 March 2022 6 days, 11 hours no report
Current time is 03:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratshipupdate
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sdrqaz 66 0 0 100 Open 15:47, 25 March 2022 6 days, 11 hours no report
Current time is 03:57, 19 March 2022 (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 or sysops), 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.

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 (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Ifnord RfA Withdrawn 13 Mar 2022 33 16 3 67
Firefly RfA Successful 11 Mar 2022 246 0 0 100
Modussiccandi RfA Successful 1 Feb 2022 196 0 1 100
theleekycauldron RfA Withdrawn 29 Jan 2022 95 50 13 66
Ceradon 3 RfA WP:SNOW 5 Jan 2022 12 28 14 30
力 2 RfA Withdrawn 25 Dec 2021 34 35 6 49

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 account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who is. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.[1] The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples 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, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
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. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !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, in an RfA (especially 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.[2] 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".[3] 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 and/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 03:57:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Sdrqaz

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (66/0/0); Scheduled to end 15:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination from TonyBallioni

Sdrqaz (talk · contribs) – It gives me great pleasure to present Sdrqaz for the community's consideration as an administrator. I first came across Sdrqaz through my work as an oversighter: they're one of the more active reporters of content needing suppression or revision deletion, and over time I came to recognize them as a person whose judgement was usually sound, and it made me look closer at them as a candidate for adminship. Taking a deeper look, I liked what I saw. Sdrqaz has a respect for community processes and norms, a good understanding of policy, and is kind and willing to talk to any user they come across. These are all things that speak highly of them as a Wikipedian, and I think their contributions as a whole show them to be someone who is diligent with their work and is willing to work in a variety of maintenance areas where having the tools would be useful. They're an all rounder with a focus on maintenance, and having someone with that skillset with the tools would be beneficial to the project.

In terms of content, they've worked to improve several articles, and brought the Shadow docket article to GA status. I think this article speaks to their understanding of our purpose: it is impeccably sourced and well written, and it was written in a neutral way about a topic that has become increasingly more controversial in legal and political circles in the United States. It shows a sound understanding of policy and content that is needed for an admin.

On the whole, I have found Sdrqaz to be an asset to the community, and I think they would be an even greater asset as an administrator. I hope you all join me in supporting their RfA. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conomination from The Blade of the Northern Lights

I'm happy today to conominate Sdrqaz for adminship. TonyBallioni had said most of what I would, but I want to add a little more. One of my common admin areas is UAA, which can get very backlogged very fast. Anytime I see Sdrqaz's signature next to a report I know it will be an open and shut case, of the dozens now that I've handled I have never declined a single one. Additionally, I have seen Sdrqaz do outstanding content work, as TonyBallioni details above. Any editor who can write high quality content, understand the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and can easily handle the day-to-day maintenance that keeps Wikipedia going strikes me as an excellent candidate, and I hope you all agree with me. Thank you for your consideration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination and am grateful for this opportunity for scrutiny. Pursuant to policy, I disclose that I have never been paid for my contributions and that I have only ever edited using this account and an alternate account for public connections. I additionally have an unused Doppelgänger account. I look forward to listening to the community's concerns and welcome its questions. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (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: There are always administrative tasks that need to be carried out: people introduce BLP violations and create attack pages every day. The time they spend on Wikipedia unambiguously damages the project, as well as the very real people they attack. I hope that my addition to the team will lead to crucial work being done with less delay and some of the burden being eased.
I intend to initially primarily work with revision and log deletions, username violations, and speedy deletions. Where I am unfamiliar with an area, I will stop and consult policy more than I already do and speak to experienced editors in those fields. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: In addition to other work, I have written and expanded five articles featured at Did You Know and subsequently brought one of them to Good Article status – shadow docket. That project means a great deal to me. I greatly enjoy dealing with content – work in that area of the project is highly rewarding. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (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: Yes. An editor whom I respected felt a disagreement with me and personalised the issue. I was bitterly saddened by the event and responded as calmly as possible. This event led me to question my judgement and re-examine the events leading up to it. In the future, I would again endeavour to scrutinise the heart of unpleasant messages – they may have been written in moments of passion, but distilling out the substance is an important process.
I think that some stress, in manageable doses, is important to prevent being desensitised to others' feelings. Actions that we take to protect the encyclopaedia may seem routine to us, but can be devastating to them. When working with less-experienced editors, my mistakes may drive them off the project before they find their footing. That is horrifying to me, hence the obligation to rectify errors and apologise. Editors are human and will make mistakes. As administrators are given tools that can cause great harm, the responsibility of care is greater and the corresponding need to make things right is even greater. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ritchie333
4. Your user space has a couple of photos of IU and Jisoo in various prominent places. Any particular reason why? I'm slightly concerned new Wikipedians might mistake these for pictures of you.
A: There isn't a particular reason why, sorry. I also have a photo of Lee Tae-min and Kim Jong-hyun, both male singers, on my alternate account's userpage. From my interactions with newer Wikipedians, that confusion has not shown itself – if anything, since people generally assume that others on the internet are male, they do the same with me. Examples include an editor from less than a fortnight ago calling me "brother" and "Respected Sir". All of that being said, I very frequently work with newer editors. If they become confused by those photos, I will firstly clarify, then change them if it emerges as a persistent problem. It's hard enough being a new Wikipedian. I don't want to add to that. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Mhawk10
5. On the deletionist-mergist-inclusionist spectrum, where do you fall and why do you take that stance?
A: I don't really see myself on that spectrum. I think we always have competing interests when considering deletion: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia and is not subject to the same restraints, but we cannot include everything just because it is true either. As Wikipedia ages and editors leave the project, we may also need to have difficult conversations about whether it is feasible to spend resources on putting every marginally non-notable, but ultimately harmless, article through the deletion process. While staving off deletion for a worthy article (Lawrence Rowntree) was rewarding, I have also requested deletion under our BLP policy when it was necessary to the protect the project and their subjects (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340 § Requested BLPDELETE). I'm sorry that this answer probably wasn't as satisfying as you'd hoped. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Sdkb
6. As the second sentence on your userpage, you write This user believes strongly in leaving edit summaries and despairs at those who do not, especially when making major edits. Do you believe that edit summaries should be required for some or all edits?
A: I believe that they should be required for all, though that position is unfortunately not supported by consensus (most editors seem to believe it should be recommended, but not mandatory, and others don't see the point in userspace edit summaries). An ideal edit summary explains what you are doing and why you are doing it. For me, the benefits are twofold: communication and accountability with other editors (which is a responsibility), and, on a selfish level, for auditing your own contributions. It's far more difficult remembering why you made an edit a few years down the line than taking a few seconds at the time to write a justification. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional question from Celestina007
7. Sdrqaz, you already have my !vote & at this juncture my questions have always remained the same, what are your views on undisclosed paid editing and how it affects the project and secondly what measures would you take in order to curb such unethical practices?
A:

Discussion

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

Support
  1. Support; was on my list of candidates to examine :) Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support I do like this candidate. Lot of anti-vandal, anti-spam work, a proper CSD mechanic. Some good content been created. Really good but better with the tools. scope_creepTalk 15:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Sdrqaz will make a great admin 🙂 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 16:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support I rarely jump into an RfA this early but I've seen the candidate around over time and always been impressed. I also trust the judgement of the noms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I really like Sdrqaz's response to Q3! GrammarDamner how are things? 16:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This candidate will definitely make a good admin, and I especially like the Q3 response. Editors are definitely human. Kline | yes? 16:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - absolutely. I run into Sdrqaz fairly frequently while responding to revision deletion and oversight requests. I find them extremely knowledgeable in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They will make a great administrator. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support obviously as the conominator. Sorry for the slight delay, ended up in an internet dead zone for a little while here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Had a look through some things, didn't see much to fault. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I have never met this person, so I will need to use the old noggin to see if I think they should be an administrator or not. Let's see. Their articles are good. Their reverts are good. They were once accidentally indeffed, and immediately unblocked with the summary "idiot", which is silly and doesn't reflect on them in any way. Not a lot of AfD participation, but what interaction they've had with the process seems quite astute (all articles they've nominated have been deleted, for example). Talk page participation is frequent and helpful. In the last six months, they have created one AN thread which seems to have been intelligent and acted upon as recommended. Their CSD log is quite long and very red (although I certainly regret the loss of Draft:Poopoopeepee). Their answers to the questions here have been smart. It does not seem to me like this person is likely to fuck things up by being an administrator, and they seem to be smart and competent. jp×g 16:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  12. (edit conflict) Support I was pinged into the discussion about this in January, and consequently have done all my research already. Good mix of mainspace contributions to maintenance work, good CSD record, excellent demeanour and communication skills when talking to confused and disgruntled editors. Excellent answer to Q3 : "Actions that we take to protect the encyclopaedia may seem routine to us, but can be devastating to them. When working with less-experienced editors, my mistakes may drive them off the project before they find their footing." I couldn't agree more. And yes, the indef block last September was immediately overturned as a mistake on behalf of the blocking administrator, and should not count against them in any way whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  13. (edit conflict × 2) Support No concerns -- lomrjyo (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Trusted noms, frequent (and frequently correct) revdel requester, seems like a net positive. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Excellent move, getting indef-blocked before running. SN54129 16:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can help you with that if you'd like. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC) SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanking you for the offer, General, but the results might not, quite be the same thing 🤪 SN54129 17:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment so nice, you signed it twice. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Highly qualified, trustworthy and competent contributor. I thought they already were an admin. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - no obvious flaws casualdejekyll 17:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. DS (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Sdrqaz has a lot of experience with helping people and building the encyclopedia. Great job! I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 17:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I have seen them around quite a bit. I have never seen anything bad come from them. I am happy to support. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support; for so many great reasons above --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - looks good to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Sea Cow (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. bibliomaniac15 19:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support competent, helpful Vexations (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. No concerns with answers to the questions. The candidate raised their own perceived skeletons in the closet at this discussion, and looking through them, I'm not seeing anything concerning, nor does it appear anyone else has discovered others not disclosed. My only reservation (and it's a severe one) is that the picture of a red panda on their userpage is collapsed under a "frivolous things" header, an insufficient level of reverence for such a majestic creature.[FBDB] {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yeppers CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Good noms, no reason to oppose. Chaddude (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Chaddude[reply]
  33. Support — Sdrqaz, is excellent at new page reviewing, anti spam, possess the right temperament, demeanor and judgement. Furthermore as an active member in new page reviewing I have seen their work first hand. Furthermore if TonyBallioni & The Blade of the Northern Lights endorses you it means you are extremely brilliant and you deserve the mop. Celestina007 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support – no concerns. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support sure. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Good editing track record. No issues I can find. Bibeyjj (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support I feel like I've seen you around but WP:EIA hasn't shown anything. Seem like a great choice to support. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I've checked a random sample of this candidate's contributions and I found nothing that concerned me.—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support clear use for the tools, net benefit to the community. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Why not? -FASTILY 22:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I can’t see why not. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 22:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I'm confident they will make good use of the tools. Nice work on shadow docket too. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - have seen their good work (UAA for instance), good answer to Q5, really like answer to Q3. Took a bit further look into their interactions with new and established editors, more positive things found. I firmly believe this candidate will be a significant positive when given the additional tools. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Everything above inspires my confidence. Maproom (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support a no-brainer. Has a clue, respected noms. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. Trust the noms, and I think Sdrqaz can meet these requirements, based on what others are saying (50th vote) Rlink2 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  51. As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Per Fastily, Ymblanter, CaptainEek, Ritchie333, and ToBeFree above. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support; no concerns. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support—Kurtis (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I particularly appreciate the thoughtfulness in the answer to question 3. Schazjmd (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. I've interacted with Sdrqaz on several occasions, and my view is the same as that of the nominators. Mz7 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Nothing but the best to say about this candidate. Courteous, reasonable, excellent understanding of policy, excellent content contributions and project-side contributions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Candidate seems helpful, sensible, dedicated, collegial, experienced, and trustworthy. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  59. They will be a great administrator. DanCherek (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - the AfD participation reflects thorough attention to policy, guidelines, and sources. Also glad to see the interest in responding to BLP violations. Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - trust the nominators. Plus I trust the candidate. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 02:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  62. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support I too am familiar with their UAA reports and have general positive impressions from other areas around the project. No direct engagement that I can recall, but also no concerns at all. Star Mississippi 03:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  64. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  65. I have met you on WP:UAA reporting cases and commenting about others reports. I even declined a cases based on your rationale. As many shared on your talk page, I also think you are an admin without tools. So Welcome! Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 03:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Excellent communication skills. All-around competent in multiple areas. — Newslinger talk 03:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
  • I wanted to ask you this question for a long time now, Sdrqaz. How to pronounce your username? I sometimes pronounce it as "S-D-R-kaz", and sometimes as "S-doctor-kaz". —usernamekiran (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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 also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. 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

Footnotes

  1. ^ Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Extended confirmed?
  2. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  3. ^ 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1077860103"