Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Article on other languages:

del.icio.us del.icio.us
Digg Digg
Furl Furl
Reddit Reddit
Rojo Rojo
Add to OnlyWire
"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for requested articles, recently featured articles, requests for arbitration, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.


Requests for adminship sections
Administrators
Shortcuts:
WP:RFA
WP:RFB
Bureaucrats
Nominate
Current admin count: 1,616 (list all)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

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. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

Contents

About RfA

The community grants administrator status 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.

Nomination standards
There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.
Decision process
Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time 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 that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.
Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.
In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.
Expressing opinions
Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical "vote". 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, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you wish to nominate a user, contact them first before making the nomination page. If they accept, create the nomination and ask them to sign their acceptance. To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow these instructions or transclude the request properly. Users interested in becoming administrators may add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls. A list of these users including additional information is automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls.


Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 21:38:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Euryalus

Voice your opinion (talk page) (56/0/1); Scheduled to end 02:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Euryalus (talk · contribs) - Euryalus seems to have what we're looking for. With 14,000 edits accumulated in around 19 months, he would appear to be with us for the long haul. Just over half of his edits are to the encyclopedia, striking a nice balance between writing the encyclopaedia and engaging with the community. In his interactions I have always found him to be polite, helpful and calm. His contributions to debates are carefully considered and clearly articulated, and reveal a good working understanding of our policy and culture. I am certain that only good can come of us extending him a little more trust. Hesperian 02:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I accept, and thank you to Hesperian for his kind words. Euryalus (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: I'd initially like to work in the areas I am most familiar with as a non-admin, such as Articles for Deletion, CSD and AIV. Over time I would branch out into anywhere that had a backlog, starting with uncontroversial matters and working up to more difficult ones. As with anything on Wikipedia, I’d aim to do my background research and seek advice from others before doing anything in unfamiliar territory.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:My best contribution would probably be my article work, particularly HM Bark Endeavour. I've created or significantly contributed to around 50 articles including Ewens Ponds, Port of Eden, Tallong, Port of Cirebon, Dalgety and North Central Victoria. A list of sorts is at User:Euryalus/Contributions.
I've also spent a fair bit of time at orphan pages and the Ports and Bangladesh WikiProjects adding content to shorter pages to make them more useful to readers.
Outside mainspace I'd probably point to my contributions to talk page and AfD discussions, where I've tried to resolve disputes or made an effort to research and explain my views:
Taking the time to research and explain your edits helps reduce disputes and keep conversations civil. This is even more so with most admin actions, and where possible I'd aim to maintain this level of communication in using admin tools.
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: Not particularly. In content disputes I’ve found that staying calm and taking the issue to the talk page usually does the trick. Most issues can be resolved by discussion, by considering the other editor's arguments and seeing if there's common ground, or by looking for wider consensus if agreement can't be reached. Sometimes this is easier than others - I've been a contributor to some occasionally heated discussions on subjects such as 9/11, political biographies and articles suffering from WP:OWN, but I've never felt especially annoyed if people don't agree with me. If in doubt a few deep breaths and some time spent just reading articles instead of editing them does wonders.
I've also done my share of vandalism reverts and had the usual userpage vandalism in return. Once again, nothing to get upset about.


Additional Questions from Balloonman

4. Euryalus, I've been reviewing your edits since your RfA went live. Right now, I am leaning towards supporting you, but I've been bothered by a number of your CSD nominations. Let me state up front, I haven't seen any that I wouldn't delete, but the rationale for some has been off. In your own words, could you explain what constitutes Patent Nonsense? Why would the following NOT be patent nonsense: 1 2345--- PoppaBalloon 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
A The formal description at WP:PN is a pretty good one, so it's hard to describe it in my own words without paraphrasing. Nonetheless - patent nonsense is either random sets of characters with no obvious meaning, or something that may have a sentence structure or some apparent point to make, but is so confused as to make no sense to a reader. The first of these is rare, the second more common but sometimes hard to technically separate from the definition of G3 (vandalism). Some articles may fall into more than one CSD category (eg. an attack page that is also vandalism), so the choice of which tag to apply can be a judgement call on the day.
To the examples:
  • 1 could also be a G10 attack page - trying to portray this Dr Leon in a negative light. It could be G3 vandalism if you considered the article primarily an attempt at crude humour. It might also be nonsense - a confused screed about skin colour and people with freckles, with a schoolteachers name on the bottom.
  • 2 was one I remember thinking about for a while. It might be G3 vandalism, if Unustheism was a genuine religious belief and this information was a deliberately false representation. It certainly lacks context (A1) but the CSD criteria relate A1 to very short articles, and this is too long to fit neatly there. Patent nonsense excludes religious excogitations, which this might be. However I could find no evidence of Unustheism to support the view that this was a genuine religious dissertation. After considering the wording of WP:PN I was of the view this materal fitted the "nonsense" definition of something apparently meaningful after a fashion, but so irredeemably confused as to mean nothing to the reader.
  • 3 is an A7 - an article about an apparently real person which doesn't indicate why its subject is notable. It appears from the tag that this is what I used.
  • 4 might be better tagged as G3 vandalism (it contains obvious misinformation, for example no one played with Led Zeppelin in 1986 as they disbanded in 1980 other than the 1985 LiveAid partial reformation, and there is no evidence of such a person associated with Neptune or any other band) but I'd also consider an AfD as a hoax, or an A7 as a non-notable bio (allegedly mixing with notable people does not of itself impart notability and ther eis no other claim to fame). I recall asking Nawlinwiki about A7 vs AfD for this kind of issue here, and getting this advice. If I tagged this as patent nonsense, I probably shouldn't have as G3 or A7 would have fitted better.
  • 5 could also be an attack page, or potentially a PROD as a non-notable neologism. However, to paraphrase the article - "A certain type of eel fishing started because someone had a nickname because they looked like a person on a biscuit packet." This seems to fit within the definition of nonsense reasonably well. Euryalus (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, my concern with the above, and the reason I don't consider them to be patent nonsene, is per WP:CSD---This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. The one about Unustheism, IMHO, is probably a hoax, poor writing, poor translation(?)---all of which are explicitly excluded from Patent Nonsense. It is probably the one article that I would NOT have deleted, but would have sent to AfD. The one about skin color, is better tagged as an attack page or vandalism. Again, as a hoax/poor writing, it is explicitly excluded. Number3 you either used nonsense in your edit summary or I clicked on the wrong button, either way, we'll ignore it because you did tag it correctly in the article. Number 4 you are right, there were better tags. Number 5, again, IMO attack page or not enough material would be a better tags. It is important to adhere to speedy deletion tags because speedy deletions can chase people away from the project and create negative feelings. The person who is chased away today, might have become a regular FA contributor, admin, crat, etc tomorrow, but left the project because their article was incorrectly speedily deleted.--- PoppaBalloon 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Euryalus before commenting.

Discussion

  • Can someone either post the text of Roy Stewart (surfer) somewhere or temporary undelete it? A CSD notice for an admin-hopeful is highly unusual and should be looked at. 04:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I looked at it. The thing was created back in January of 2008 and underwent 40 edits before being tagged for speedy deletion, including DAB and CAT. In fact, one version may actually assert notability, before a vandal got to it. Cheers, 05:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • As Mattinbgn indicates, in January this year a new user (Olosurfer) was trying to create an article about a surfer called Roy Stewart, but was adding it to the end of an article on Roy Stewart the actor. He'd been reverted a couple of times but kept coming back, so to assist him I moved the text to Roy Stewart (surfer). The version I moved asserted limited notability (a pioneer of wooden surfboard design) but it had no refs and little detail so I left Olosurfer a note indicating I'd moved it but it needed sources. I don't know whether he added them or not, but 10 months later it was deleted (presumably it had stayed unreferenced over that time). If it was today I might have moved the text to Olosurfer's userspace instead of its own page. Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


Support
  1. As nominator. Hesperian 03:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. Strong support An outstanding editor and great contributor at WP:AUS. While not afraid to take a position, he nevertheless steers clear of Wikidramaz and retains a cool head when discussion may get heated. A feature of his contributions to the project is the quality of his AfD comments. Not satisfied with a "per nom" comment, Euryalus provides detailed information, referring to policy or guidelines on what has prompted his !vote and advice on what could be done to change it; see [1], [2], [3] and [4]. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Meets my criteria. ( / ) 03:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong support () 03:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Ooh yeah. Great contributor and will be a great admin. Moondyne 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support I was very impressed with the Barnstar of Rescue. Impressed by talk page. I found ~700 deleted edits. 04:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support. A consistent record of valued and considered contributions. Melburnian (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Very well-rounded editor, no serious conflicts, could definitely put admin tools to good use. 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Thoughtful contributor who gives every indication of being respectful and prudent with the tools. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. I would trust you with the tools, and you have a fine contribution history. ⇔ ∫ÆS dt @ 05:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Yes you have my Support.-- 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - Will be just fine with the few extra buttons. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support — Good editor, impressive answer to Balloonman's question in my opinion, nice ability to clarify things simply. Why not. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - history demonstrates trustworthiness: Clear style in both articles and talk pages, non confrontational, dedicated to getting things right (as demonstrated by research for AfD). I believe precision and consideration mean the tools are safe in his hands, and that's what counts. 10:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support -- echoing the support given above. I have no reason to see or believe otherwise. - Longhair\talk 11:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. Aussieaussieaussie-oioioi...seriously though, clear net positive and excess of light over heat indicate a net positive for the 'pedia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support- Has, in my opinion, the most important qualification for the extra buttons: “Investigator”. Euryalus researches his/her opinion before expressing it. Looks at both sides of a situation, researches it, than formulates his/her response based on the situation and the facts. Now that is someone who has Administrator material. Good luck to you. 12:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support Looks like a good candidate. 12:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Support per above especially the question answers, and from reviewing candidates contributions such as to Talk:Kevin Rudd ϢereSpielChequers 12:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. Strong support Agree with nom and Mattinbgn amongst others. A strong editor on content alone even not considering his admirably even temperament when handling disputes such as those at Talk:John Howard and Talk:Nicola Roxon with the calm and factual approach that was sorely needed and without taking sides. Wish you the best on this one. Orderinchaos 13:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  21. Hello, I'm Sarah Palin and I'd like to return this clothing I recently received as a gift -- I have my receipt for the $150,000 purchase and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a highly worthy candidate (you betcha). Ecoleetage (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  22. Support. Looks great. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  23. Support per nom and experience of seeing the work in the Australian project SatuSuro 13:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. Support I find no reason for concern. Also, per the very thoughtful answer to Q4. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  25. Support any editor remaining after 18 hours, days, months of circular discussions on articles like John Howard & Nicola Roxon needs a padded cell mop, and should be sharing his happy pills with the rest of us Gnangarra 14:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Giggling uncontrollably. 15:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  26. Support - He seems to be patient and methodical, even when the discussion gets hot. I liked his answer to Q4. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  27. Support - No significant problems witnessed here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolysis (talk • contribs)
  28. (ec)Support Thought I had done so last night, but when I started reviewing Euryalus, I thought for sure that I was going to oppose him. There were some red flags that popped up immediately: Heavy use of bots, sppedy deleter, and lack of meaningful talk page discussions (EG there are few pages where he's made more than a few edits). I particularly hate Speedy Deleters... while I recognize the need for them, I will only support the best of the best because IMHO a wreckless speedy deleter can be as harmful to the project as the most persistent vandal---and may never be noticed. So I took a very close look at Euryalus, probably close to four hours (interspersed with watching the election results)! I checked a large number of his AFD contributions, where he makes solid well rounded policy based persuasive arguments. I checked well over 100 of his CSD's... and while I caution him on the use of Patent Nonsense and *I* might have referred one or two to AFD, there weren't any that I felt were mistagged. I also checked out his talk page---particularly looking for "reverts" or other signs of removing complaints. Again, I would suggest carrying on conversations where they start and not jumping from page to page. I also looked at his other contributions. The more I saw, the more convinced that I became that Euryalus is a speedy deleter that I could support. His answer to my question above, satisfys my only concern.--- PoppaBalloon 14:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  29. Support as candidate has never been blocked and due to no memorable negative interactions with the candidate. --A NobodyMy talk 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  30. Support, good article editor, but please do teach yourself the speedy deletion criterias better. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support I like all of your contributions and you've put in enough work to articles that I feel comfortable with. Please work on improving your CSD work so it is more accurate as any wrongly speedied article always hurts the project. However, you are trustworthy and I believe you will improve in that area. --Banime (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Trustworthy editor. When in doubt, AfD is never a bad idea. 19:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  33. Support After Careful Consideration.User has been around since April 2007 and has over 7000 mainspace edits and over 14000 overall.The user is a Good editor but has made a few questionable edits in CSD and further the fact he plans to work in CSD and Deletions as per question 1 made me think.But after reviewing his contribution again see no chance of misuse and has shown great commitment to Wikipedia.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support Safe, Sound, Capable, Enthusiastic, Thoughtful, Considerate. Did I miss anything? Pedro : 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, I think so...trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent--- PoppaBalloon 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Good Lord, the ex-colonies do have some use. Didn't they recently have a local election as well? Gosh, it's a high time over the other side of the pond! Pedro : 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  35. Work is too good for me to oppose, darn. ;) 21:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support. Good contributions & reasonable answers. 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  37. Je soutiens ce candidat. I don't see why not. Net positive. Cheers, (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  38. Support. macy 22:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  39. Support this user seems to a perfect candidate, clean block log, varied contributions, article work, high edit count; per my RfA criteria Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  40. Support. Candidate has good knowledge of policy and is a little iffy with CSD tags, but positives overpower this issue. 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  41. Support Looks Good To Me. II MusLiM HyBRiD II Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja 23:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  42. Support Looks great to me. We could use an admin at Wikipedia:AL. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  43. Keeps a cool head in heated discussions and remains dispassionate and committed to the goals of Wikipedia; strongly support. east718 // // // 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support because of many good articles. Crystal whacker (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  45. Support A well experienced editor, very careful in his work, and dedicated. I think we can trust him not to make the wrong decisions or misuse the tools in any way. He should definitely get the tools. Chamal talk 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support I don't mind the CSD tags issues that much, and Q4 assured me that it's not too much of an issue. Otherwise, a great candidate, definitely deserving! Firebat08 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  47. Support - great article work, good communication and trustworthy editor. Somno (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  48. Support – Very good article work, loads of experience in vandalism, the patent nonsense question does raise some concerns but they are very minor, i'd trust this user in using sysop tools. – 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  49. Support Looks good to me, good luck! TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 01:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  50. Support per WP:WTHN at the moment, as I see nothing of immediate concern. I'll take a closer look as the RfA progresses. –Juliancolton 01:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  51. Weak support Very bold edits I'd say, but your meaning of "pantent nonsense" is kind of confusing. Took me a few minutes to figure out what you were trying to say. Leujohn (, )
  52. Yes, yes, a thousand times over, and a thousand times under, yes. Prolific contributor who has earned the level of trust associated with the tools. Valtoras (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support - Seems to research issues in a painstaking and diligent way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  55. Strong Support - Users seems to be extremly experienced and know how to use the tools. You have my vote all the way. --Elite Rhodes (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  56. Support. For some reason I thought I had already participated in this RFA, but I realized I hadn't yet. Anyway, Euryalus is sufficiently experienced. Meets my criteria. Useight (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  57. Support The editor seems to be a good candidate for adminship, so why not? We can always use the help, especially with CSDs, where the backlog is often at 100+ and I am sure that he will restrain himself on CSD#G1 deletions in cases where he is in doubt. The candidate seems to be able to not start running amok with deletions and has instead indicated to be willing to be cautious. I think he can be trusted to keep that promise. ;-) SoWhy 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support - seems very trustworthy, and the CSD tagging issue does not seem that major (as Balloonman said his main concern was regarding CSD categories, not with tagging pages which shouldn't have been tagged at all, for the most part). It Is Me Here (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  59. Trust this candidate not to go apeshit with G1 speedy deletion et cetera. My experience of this candidate has been encouraging. TALK 20:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support Good candidate. America69 (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  61. Support ahhhh yup... nothing here but good stuff. Talk or C 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose


Neutral
  1. Neutral Sorry, I can't support due to the "Patent Nonsense" CSD mistakes. It shows the candidate hasn't read the speedy deletion criteria very well. We already have too many admins who don't understand the criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    Apparently there's a difference between what the RFA cabal thinks should be done and actual practice. Some admins apparently use WP:CSD#G1 to cover WP:IAR or WP:SNOW deletions that don't really fit any specific criteria. When prospective admins tag this way, and the admins delete, they don't realize they are making a mistake. Could that be the case here? In any event, I think the candidate is enough of a rescuer to not make hasty deletions a bad habit. 17:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    And G1 is the most abused reason for speedy deletions for that reason... if it doesn't fit one of the criteria cleanly, then it probably shouldn't be speedy deleted. The criteria are strict for a reason. An over eager speedy deleter can do more long term damage to the project than a vandal!--- PoppaBalloon 18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    There is a custom CSD tag, by the way. Things that are for example IAR CSDs should be tagged as such, and not G1'ed. 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

About RfB

Shortcut:
WP:RFB

Bureaucrats are users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user 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. 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 USER ~~~~}} 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 frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

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


Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

Related pages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship"

This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Giant Panda

Mercedes Car
James Bond Guide
This site monitored by SitePinger.net