Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-confirmed-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
Rusalkii 156 0 0 100 Pending closure... 19:36, 23 April 2025 0 hours no report
Current time is 19:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Rusalkii 156 0 0 100 Pending closure... 19:36, 23 April 2025 0 hours no report
Current time is 19:41, 23 April 2025 (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, an alternative type of RfA, took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The next administrator election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for further information.

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 community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions 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 %
EggRoll972 RfA No consensus 19 Apr 2025 110 57 10 66
LaundryPizza03 RfA Unsuccessful 17 Apr 2025 72 81 26 47
Goldsztajn RfA Successful 23 Mar 2025 136 1 4 99
Barkeep49 RfB Successful 7 Mar 2025 219 5 8 98
Giraffer RfA Successful 1 Mar 2025 221 0 1 100

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 added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

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 the extended confirmed right.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or 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 19:41:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Rusalkii

The following discussion is preserved as a request for adminship that has been automatically placed on hold pending a decision as to the outcome. Please do not modify the text. The result of the discussion will be posted soon.

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (156/0/0); Scheduled to end 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Rusalkii (talk · contribs) – Rusalkii has been doing unobtrusively excellent work on Wikipedia for more than four years, during which she has accumulated more than 30,000 edits. She has expanded and improved a number of articles, on topics such as a popular science book about dinosaurs, an African shrew, and a US Marine Corps mascot, and has a GA and 13 DYKs to her name. Rusalkii has also been a diligent participant at RfD – a perennially backlogged venue – and at AfC, where she will be able to make productive use of the admin tools. Equally to her credit, she has only 8 edits to the cesspool. Her talk page and AfC contributions evince helpfulness, CLUE, and patience in spades, and she would make a great addition to the administrator corps. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I am delighted to co-nominate Rusalkii for adminship. A bit more than three years ago, she and I were both starting out at AfC, where she was easily noticeable for her kind demeanour, her tendency to ask the questions we were all wondering about, and her readiness to help where where needed. Oh, and for her ruthless slaughtering of the backlog. (By the way, she wrote this handy explainer on sources for drafts.) I see that, since then, she's brought her humility, determination, and willingness to learn to other parts of the project, including NPP and COI edit requests. I'm confident that she'll approach unfamiliar admin tasks in the same way. We can always use more quick-study admins who are willing to admit that they don't know the answer, and anyone who can handle COI cases for a year without becoming the Joker absolutely has the right temperament. I hope you all agree. asilvering (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you both. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay, and have never had any other accounts. Rusalkii (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2025 (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: I'm active at RfD, which almost always has a large admin backlog. I've closed a few obvious "keeps", but anything where deletion is remotely on the table should be closed by someone with the ability to action that close, and I'd like to be able to do that. The tools can also help out at AfC, where I periodically need to speedy a draft for vandalism, copyvio, or other issues, or delete a redirect to make way for an incoming draft.
I also just have a tendency to see a backlog and get personally offended by it. That's how I started working in most of the areas I'm active in the first place. I expect I'll branch out into other admin works as I get more comfortable with the tools, learn the norms of those areas, and see more places in which I could be helpful.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I think traditionally this is where I point to content I've written, but a lot of my work has been on various review process, from AfC to NPP to COI edit requests. It's difficult to point to any individual actions there: if you're doing it right, this kind of review can blend into the background. Once, however, someone whose AfC draft I left some comments on (I think it was a decline, even!) told me that "In one year of editing Wikipedia, your feedback has been the most detailed and helpful to improve". It's very, very easy in all these review processes to forget that you are the face of Wikipedia for people who have never heard of any of these acronyms and ideas that are being thrown at them, and I sincerely hope that this person is at least somewhat representative of the impact that I have in that role.
A more traditional answer is Johnlock. I really enjoyed getting to work on this kind of weird and traditionally "unencyclopedic" topic where it turns out there were actually quite a few strong academic sources. Collaborating with my GA reviewer DaniloDaysOfOurLives and Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped make the article much stronger. I'm also rather fond of Pulaski's Masterpiece, a fun little article about a dog I stumbled on while doing research for something tangentially related. It may not be my most exhaustive work, but it's my most popular DYK to date (crime sells!).
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: Overall, I tend to avoid stressful areas: Wikipedia is a hobby, and if you're regularly upset by it that's a sign that something is going wrong. If I notice myself getting stressed by some person or process, I drop that and go somewhere else: there's a lot of encyclopedia and there's no need to keep working at things that are unpleasant to you. Occasionally I do end up in a situation where I don't feel like I can easily leave it, whether because I think there's a really serious issue that no one else is aware of, or because I'm already committed in a way where I can't just bow out.
In one such conflict, once I noticed that I was really starting to take it personally, I tried taking at least an hour before responding to any message, not just dashing off the first satisfying-sounding thing I could think of. I think it's really important to notice the urge to say something pointed or that'll-show-them: that's very rarely constructive and tends to escalate rather than calm down issues, and I find if I take some time on my reply I'm much more likely to avoid that and end up actually taking into account their perspective on the issue. A useful question here is "what if they were right?". I also find it helpful to try to get an outside perspective relatively quickly, before a conflict starts going in circles and getting more acrimonious.

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 Ganesha811

4. Are there any areas of admin work you don't plan to get involved in, due to inexperience or lack of interest? If you later decided to volunteer in those areas, how would you ensure you have the necessary knowledge and skills?
A: There's nothing I'm absolutely sure I'll never do - if you'd asked me a year ago if I'd get into answering COI edit requests I would've said absolutely not - but there's plenty of areas I don't have any current plans to participate in and would need a lot of time to feel comfortable in. Some examples off the top of my head of areas I don't expect to branch out to are WP:CfD, WP:SPI, and DYK admin work. If I did plan to get into them I'd start by carefully reading the relevant policies, getting active in the area without doing anything that requires the tools, watch the existing admins working in that area, and then start on the most straightforward admin tasks and work my way up. For DYK, for instance, I've already nominated some hooks, so I'd probably start with reading the set prep guides, prepare some sets for others to promote, and then work my way up to promoting the sets myself when I feel like I understand the how things work.

Optional question from Miminity

5. As an AFC reviewer, do you reject or decline AI-generated articles and why?
A: Decline. In my view, rejects are for cases where it's clear the submitter is not going to improve the article further. Unless I'm very, very confident that a subject isn't notable or the submitter is obviously trolling, I will always decline the first time to give them a chance to improve. For an AI generated article, this might require starting completely from scratch, but there's still no need to bite them with the giant stop sign instead of explaining how to fix the issue.

Optional questions from Conyo14

6. Aside from the articles you've mentioned above, what topics of Wikipedia do you prefer to edit?
A: Content-wise, I don't think of myself as having much of a topic preference, but empirically I have tended to work on dog breeds and other dog related subjects, fandom-related topics, and most recently various obscure species stubs. I have some vague aspirations of branching out to history, which I enjoy, but have edited mostly superficially in that area. Otherwise, I gnome (I like adding short descriptions, deorphaning articles, and sourcing completely unrefrenced articles), and in addition to the backend work I talked about above I am a redirect patroller, do recent changes patrolling when I'm on mobile, and sometimes just bounce around random articles fixing minor issues as I notice them.
7. Further, what topics/administrative areas would you feel uncomfortable or not touch with a ten-foot pole?
A: Well, as I said above there's nothing I'm absolutely confident I'm not going to touch, but some areas I would be surprised to find myself working in are SPI, CCI, and DYK admin work.

Optional question from Harry

8. Can you point me to somewhere where you've defended either content you've written or a policy-based decision you've made? (Examples might include an AfD of an article you wrote or a challenged RfC close but really I'm looking for anything where you've had to defend a decision on a policy basis)
A: The first one that comes to mind is this discussion at Talk:Johnlock#Not sure about these sources. I used a Master's thesis as a source and another editor pushed back on it. I felt the source was usable in this case because it had been cited in several other works (not that many numerically, but it's a very small field), which WP:SCHOLARSHIP calls out as an important criteria for when theses are more likely to be reliable.

Optional questions from BusterD

9. Thank you for your willingness to mop up. My actions as sysop do not always cover me with glory. My two queries are about what you're thinking when things go wrong. What's your process if you realize you've made an error in judgement?
A: I'd say the majority of my errors in judgment don't rise to the point of needing a "process" per se: I notice a mistake, I go "sorry, my bad" where appropriate, and try to keep this in mind the next time I end up in a similar situation. To the extent that there's any process to it I think it's in keeping an eye out for when I've made an error in judgment at all, and adjusting using the small mistakes so that they don't turn into big ones. This happens all the time: if one of my RfD nominations gets kept I think about whether I made a mistake nominating, if someone makes substantial adjustments to text I wrote I think about whether I should've written the way they did it, etc. Sometimes I did make a mistake, and sometimes I didn't, but in all cases I think it's very important to approach these situations from the starting point of "what can I take away from this" even if in the end the answer is that I don't think I should change how I'm doing that particular thing.
10. Would you be willing to illustrate your thinking with one example of self-correction and what you learned correcting yourself in that situation?
A: Having said all that about how overall I think most such cases should be small course corrections rather than big incidents, I'm going to talk about a somewhat bigger one. When I was a couple months into reviewing at AfC, I was at my most prolific, and I got feedback from Liz that they thought I was moving way too fast: they noticed several declined drafts spaced very close together, and thought I wasn't taking enough time on them. I thought about that one for a while, and ended up formulating my personal rule for this kind of thing: any time a draft has already gotten one templated decline, I have to write a specific, personal message pointing out issues with the draft and how it might be improved. Liz's feedback caused me to think a lot about the perspective of submitters getting these rapid-fire form declines, and where and how we as reviewers should focus our time and effort to help them. I still have Liz's comments in my head occasionally when I'm tempted to just slap a template on a draft and move on, and I think this helped me really think about how - the newbies aren't a hive mind. I may get frustrated the twentieth time in an hour I've seen this particular issue and get sick of explaining it, but this is their first time, and it isn't fair to them to not take the same time explaining the twentieth time that I did the first. If I'm not in the right headspace to do that, then I should take a break and go do something else until I can again.

Optional question from NYC Guru

11. Under what conditions would you block a new user indefinitely?
A: The account being used exclusively for blatant vandalism or spam, egregious personal attacks that any user should expect to understand are beyond the pale even if unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, legal threats, or blatant violations of the username policy (in which case they should be clearly told the issue with the username and how to fix it). In all cases, ideally after a final warning, though in particularly bad and obviously bad faith cases of vandalism or similar I may block without warnings.

Optional question from NYC Guru

12. How would you react to seeing the following names being created?
A: DonaldTrump (talk · contribs): Depending on their behavior, either block on sight as obvious impersonation, or leave a talk page message requesting a change. Either way, explain the problem and instruct the user on how to change their username. Wikiedotr22 (talk · contribs): if there's something wrong with this one it's going over my head, welcome them if they seem to be editing and otherwise ignore it. DrunkEditor3 (talk · contribs): I'm not familiar with how the username policy is applied in edge cases like this. I can see an argument for this being potentially problematic, but currently I would ignore. If I did decide it was problematic, I'd leave them a talk page message about it instead of blocking.


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her 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. Support as nominator. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Offered a nomination a few days back. Strong candidate. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very happy to see this charlotte 👸♥ 19:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - I don't believe we've interacted, but they seem like an industrious editor with a kind heart! AviationFreak💬 19:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Crossed paths with her on-Wiki yesterday and was literally thinking "how isn't she already an admin?" Then saw that this was in the works and got very happy. Always a pleasure to see her around, please count me in as very happy to support. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I don't see any way you could oppose this nomination. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 19:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Reviewed one of their DYKs (Pulaski's Masterpiece). Was a very pleasent exchange. WatkynBassett (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 20:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Strikes me as a well-rounded editor with sound content, maintenance, and technical experience. I can't help but also appreciate the species articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support A refreshing set of answers; a no-brainer. Tony Holkham (Talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, no issues here. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support We need more admins! Also, a seemingly good candidate with good nominators. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Thank you for volunteering ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support I know them mostly through their solid work at AfC and the related help desk. Knows their stuff, overall good egg, no concerns. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support AfC is a big plus. Good to see more admins there. SK2242 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I've seen Rusalkii around RfD and I'm always happy to have more admin help there. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. From one "lesser" XfD editor to another, support! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support her promotion. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Besides my trust in the nominators, she has a broad range of experience and content creation, but the most important thing that she has is a willingness to accept correction, as evidenced by her talk page. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support thoughtful answers to questions and plentiful green flags in user stats/talk page. Zzz plant (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. —Ingenuity (t • c) 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support No concerns, net positive. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support It will be good to have more admins at AfC and RfD. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 22:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - looks like a net benefit. starship.paint (talk / cont) 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Zero qualms here. She seems well rounded, well liked, and well prepared for the tools. TheSavageNorwegian 23:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support A qualified and thoughtful candidate. No concerns here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Diligently completed a high-quality GA review (Talk:Anna Filosofova/GA1), caught a couple of mistakes of mine. No issues raised in a quick look at their contributions. A great candidate. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  35. great editor, definitely trustworthy :) ... sawyer * any/all * talk 00:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, from what I remember, this editor is qualified. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, Dracophyllum 01:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support looks like a great editor, adminship is no big deal! - JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support I like what I see on the user talk page. Joyous! Noise! 02:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Sounds good to me, thank you for your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Have seen her around. I recall a recent AfD where she went the extra mile to evaluate sources carefully, then revisited conclusions as new sources became available. Perceptive and communicative -- just what we want in an admin. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support I do not see any obvious issues here in her skills or understanding of policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support – clueful, friendly, great answers to questions (especially Q3). Graham87 (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support - Have seen this user around and always been impressed with their kindness. I really appreciate the willingness to work on backlogs. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 03:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support lgtm. – robertsky (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I trust the noms and I believe this will be a great addition to the admin team. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me)
  50. Support Per nomination. Will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 04:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: Has a Clue and Answer my question great. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Can't wait to see you becoming an admin. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Why not? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Very friendly editor with all around great contributions as far as I'm aware. Happy to support, cheers! Johnson524 05:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Clearly a good candidate and we need new Admins. Bduke (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Cabayi (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  57. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Not somebody I've come across before, but I did a look through their contributions and everything looks fine to me. I'm particularly impressed with the cheat sheet for AfC sources and the patience they had reviewing FloridaArmy's AfC submissions, which seem to have been a long-time controversial subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support: Good candidate for admin tools. GrabUp - Talk 11:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support: Someone who I've definitely seen around. Lots of good content work and extensive reviewing work. Justiyaya 11:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Her ability to admit a mistake and change her view accordingly as new information surfaces, as demonstrated in this AfD withdrawal, win me over. Owen× ☎ 11:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support: No brainer, clearly competent user who learns from mistakes and will do well with the tools. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support LGTM. Ternera (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Plainly excellent candidate. OceanGunfish (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Volten001 ☎ 13:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support A quite excellent nominee. Thanks asilvering for co-nominating her! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -- I am impressed. A clearly competent and well-rounded editor. And their talk page replies and discussions have remained the same -- from their first editing day through today -- courteous, informative, good-humored and a willingness to learn or to accept a possible mistake. Rusalkii will do well as an Admin. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Someone with the maturity to not only own up to their mistakes, but to do it in the RFA request, is definitely deserving of the mop -- Grapefanatic (Talk) 17:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support, the nominee seems trustworthy and I have no concerns. Other than her avoidance of the cesspool, which I totally get, but in all seriousness the nominee isn't a jerk, has a clue (and sufficient content-creation and administrative experience), and is willing to change her viewpoint and admit mistakes. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Looks good. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Happy to promote a well-rounded editor! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, <silly>but once again I am calling upon candidates to prove their worth by supporting Plantipedia. Rusalkii did do a little clean up on Cryptocoryne parva, but only seven edits total. Minimal effort.</silly> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    <silly> Excuse me, I had African ginger on the main page just a few days ago, I have put in my time for the Plantipedia voting block. </silly> Rusalkii (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support I've seen them around, seems like a good choice. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support As Ritchie333 noted, the source cheatsheet Rusalkii has shows excellent working knowledge about differentiating notability from mere ref-bombing. I feel almost silly voting, as this is already a pretty lop-sided polling result, but the African ginger comment cemented my vote. As much for the personality shown as the support of plants. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Stephen 21:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Looks good to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. An excellent candidate: smart and articulate, knows her way around content expectations, and understands dispute resolution without wasting time acting as a wannabe. While I'm here, a suggestion to her and to future candidates: when you mention past disputes in answering Q3, provide a blue link or a diff, so other editors can look at it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support; no red flags. Iseult Δx talk to me 01:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Yes. Useful, alert, responsive, polite - the sort of person we want as an admin. I like to look at a candidate's talkpages, especially the early days, to see what sort of issues come up, and how they are dealt with - I like the professional way Rusalkii dealt with the early comments: User_talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2021/November - helpful, calm, polite, informative, assured. It's a yes from me. SilkTork (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Post nubila Phoebus, in the immediate wake of two RFAs that have not been shining (ahem) moments for this process. Here there is no doubt apparent on the community's part. I do not appear to have interacted with this editor much, so I can't say anything from personal experience. But many other people I trust and respect are here vouching for her. And it will certainly be nice to have yet another Russian-fluent admin in the ranks to share the burden of taking abuse like this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. She has helped handle a few COI requests for my articles. Hope these new rights will help her perform duties even better esp in COI.- Imcdc Contact 07:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Toadspike [Talk] 10:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support --Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 11:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 11:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Piling on at this point. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  90. The answer to my question was almost exactly what I was looking for. It shows a keen understanding of both the letter and spirit of policies and guidelines, and the ability to cooly explain a decision. That's why prospective admins benefit from some involvement with the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support I don't think a lack of edits to ANI is necessarily a good attribute for an admin, but as the candidate is not an admin yet, that may change going forward. I'm not seeing any concerning behavior, and there seems to be good communication by the candidate, which is one of the most important attributes for me. – notwally (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Seems like a strong candidate, no concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support per nom. All the Best -- Chuck Talk 21:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Happy to support, based on all evidence and good personal experience with the user. Cremastra talk 22:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Clueful, thoughtful, good communication, well-rounded. As others have previously said "no concerns". Happily support. - Shearonink (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. See nothing wrong here. Procyon117 (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support without concerns. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Clearly clueful. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  100. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 18:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  101. (Moved from neutral.) Just ran across this interaction which occurred about a month ago. I forgot about this until today when I was looking through the RfD backlog. I now know where I now stand on this RfA; the comment chain shows a real good sense of self-reflection and self-correction, which ... is exactly a great quality to have in an admin ... one that is cordial and always learning from their experiences and willing to hear feedback. Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support No concerns -- everything looks zaebis. IP75 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Competent, good communication skills, willingness to learn from mistakes; and not least, someone who excels at gnomish tasks... Have the tools, please! Renerpho (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support I feel like they can do a lot more as admin, therefore I am supporting them in this choice! Valorrr (lets chat) 01:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support No reason not to support. Jaguar479 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  107. S Conyo14 (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support – excellent candidate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Why not! saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 10:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  111. jp×g🗯️ 10:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Definitely seems to be a diligent and reliable editor who, as well as being a good writer, does a lot of necessary maintenance work. Great candidate. Spartathenian (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - First, it's always a good sign when two editors I highly respect nominate someone. Second, in my work at NPP, until they got the autopatrolled right, it was always a joy to review an article which she had accepted at AfC. In other areas she has also had a very positive contribution to the project. Will make a very good Admin.Onel5969 TT me 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Thanks for volunteering to wield the mop. Gnomes rule. Loopy30 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. No red flags, I can see, the answers to the questions are good and demonstrate some wisdom. The content work is good and diverse, and the candidate is already doing admin-leaning work without displaying any "give me a gun and a badge" attitude.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support about as procedural as it gets, I can't find any issues that I have just looking over it. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - A good fit for administration - trustworthy, even temperament, good communicator, and skillful. Thanks for volunteering. Netherzone (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Doesn't seem to any problems. Good luck. Tarlby (t) (c) 00:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - This is a strong candidate for admin on so many levels: communication, temperament, WP:CLUE, and some content creation. I'm happy to pile on. - tucoxn\talk 12:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Seeing as this is still too close to call, let me also cast my !vote to help nudge it off the fence. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Seems like a great editor and person. MallardTV Talk to me! 15:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - No problems, I see.M.C. (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support as a net positive. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support I'm surprised this user wasn't already an admin. Dege31 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - Thank you for your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - Looks like a shoo-in, and for good reason. ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Has a clue, shows evidence of content creation/curation and good judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. Happy to pile on. Miniapolis 23:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support—Alalch E. 23:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support per answers to questions. --NYC Guru (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Ryan shell (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support, no concerns, don't think they'll abuse the tools. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support – orangkalideres - talk - contribs 12:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support –Boo Boo (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support as no serious concerns have been raised. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Thank you for your contributions and for your continued help. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support, looks like they will be a net-positive to the team, has a clue and looks willing to learn the new tools. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support –– Happy to jump on this bandwagon. From everything I'm seeing, Rusalkii looks like an ideal candidate. I hope she enjoys the mop! Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Welcome to the ranks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Pile on support. Good answers. Good noms. BusterD (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Qualified - thoughful and level headed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support – good, competent editor who I have never run into issues with. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Quarl (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  147. yeah CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 10:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Kind of assumed they were already an admin. Spookyaki (talk) 10:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Haven't interacted with this user, however she seems to be an upstanding contributor and would be a good fit for administrator. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  150. support I find no issues with the user Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - It is good to see a non-contentious candidate sometimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support I like the answers on the usernames the most. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 15:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - I have no issues. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Sliding in just under the cut-off; i don't know the candidate, but nothing i have seen since the start of the RfA raises any questions ~ LindsayHello 19:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. I don't see anything objectionable with this user. Thanks for volunteering!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral
Neutral. I've had to clean up their RfD nomination formattings more than I care to remember. Editor also has a bit of a repetitive habit of not signing their comments. It's enough for me to not support, but too pedantic for me to oppose. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC) (Moved to support.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
10/10 neutral vote. Something aesthetically pleasing about it. Yes, I am a little odd, why do you ask? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • This isn't a point against the nominee but a response to the nomination statement: it rubs me the wrong way when someone touts "hasn't edited ANI" as a virtue, because it can just as easily mean "lets problems fester instead of addressing them, and avoids standing up for editors who are being bit". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote that, and I'll take responsibility for it. You are correct that ANI is a necessary evil: we need a generic place to go for administrator attention. It's also true that the average non-administrator's comment on a topic they are uninvolved in isn't very helpful. There is a very good reason why the community has historically been disapproving of non-admin clerking at ANI, and of too much time at the "drama boards" in a candidate for adminship. Unless I see evidence of a candidate actively avoiding a problem that needed to go to AN/ANI, I will continue to see it as evidence that they are on Wikipedia for the right reasons, and therefore as a strong positive. I could perhaps have been less flippant about it, but after all if there's one thing Wikipedians agree on, it's the unpleasantness of ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly second that - many times what makes a conflict harder to resolve is not those who start it, but when others get involved. In general, I think we should welcome those that demonstrate a capacity to deescalate, rather than rush into the breach. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See my thoughts on ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. It gives me pause when I see a candidate who has spent significant time clerking or even commenting heavily at ANI. Not a deal breaker, but definitely not a plus for me. Valereee (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the average non-administrator's comment on a topic they are uninvolved in isn't very helpful [at ANI]" is rather contrary to the entire purpose of ANI (and RfC, and RM, and XfD, and other centralized processes), which is specifically to gather input from the community beyond the circular back-and-forth of the directly involved parties. While it is true that randos who don't know what they're talking about policy-wise, and who do not bother looking into the context of the dispute, tend to be unhelpful noise, it is not actually the case the input at ANI, etc., from more sensible editors who are not participants in the dispute is somehow a bad thing. We actually depend on it heavily. I won't say further on this here, since it's not germane to the RfA. More on-topic: I definitely agree with "There is a very good reason why the community has historically been disapproving of ... too much time at the 'drama boards' in a candidate for adminship."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 the extended confirmed right 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=1286440091"