Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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
AirshipJungleman29 34 21 4 62 Open 21:54, 3 October 2024 6 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
AirshipJungleman29 34 21 4 62 Open 21:54, 3 October 2024 6 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

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

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Significa liberdade RfA Successful 21 Sep 2024 163 32 10 84
Asilvering RfA Successful 6 Sep 2024 245 1 0 >99
HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

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

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 08:47:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

AirshipJungleman29

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (34/21/4); Scheduled to end 21:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) – Hello there, I'm Airship. I've been editing for a couple of years now. My first love was and remains the improvement of content, and I am inordinately proud of the work I've done bringing several articles up to featured and good status. Apart from that, I have got involved promoting nominations at DYK, playing a large role at WP:GAR, closing discussions, and generally bouncing around the place. I believe that I could be an efficient and useful addition to the admin corps. I have never edited for pay, and I have no alternate accounts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I believe I have the experience and knowledge of Wikipedia to contribute productively in most admin areas. For example, I have greatly enjoyed closing several discussions, but have tended to steer away from more divisive closes because of my non-admin status. I feel that as an admin I could make a real impact at (the perenially-backlogged) WP:CR. Other areas where I have contributed on the non-admin side of things include AFD/CSD nominations and DYK, but I think I can become useful anywhere (as long as no coding is involved).
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: If I had to pick one, rewriting Genghis Khan into an FA-quality article—it took nearly two years and was a real labour of love. There is also Ai-Khanoum, the first article I took to FAC, which I honestly believe is close to perfect. On a wider scale, most of my content work (eleven featured articles or lists, in addition to eight good articles) has been on woefully undeveloped topics, and to shed some light as I have done is a legacy worth having to me. I am also proud of playing a large role in helping kickstart the previously pretty-much-dormant GAR process last year.
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, absolutely. One thing I have been chastised for was for being too passive-aggressive in heated discussions. I have since tried to consistently apply WP:COOL when involved in disputes and to always keep this xkcd in mind; I also had two off-wiki encounters which really left me thinking. I now believe that to actively participate in furious arugments is the easy way out, and that it takes real guts to comport yourself with dignity even when those around you are almost setting the air alight with anger. That is the standard I aim to keep to, on-wiki and off.

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 Clovermoss
4. Given your interest in DYK, is there anything differently you would do in situations like these in the future?
A: I think I had a point about systemic bias and you get disagreements over DYK prep-setting fairly often, but looking back now I'm a bit startled at my truculence. Thanks for giving me (another!) opportunity to reflect and learn from the past, and a belated apology to you and Bruxton for my grumpiness. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Rjjiii

5. Wikipedia:Did you know (DYK) struggles to find admins willing to review facts and promote them to the main page. Based on your experience in the non-admin steps of the DYK process, what have you seen discourage other admins from doing this work, and how do you plan to handle those challenges?
A:

Optional question from Kingsmasher678

6. What are your feelings on the idea of admins being recalled by the community, and would you be willing to undergo recall if the community raised concerns about your conduct as an admin?
A:

Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their 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. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with § c-Johnbod-20240927023600-Support below. We can agree that Airship will be looking down the barrel of a desysop if he cannot reduce the temperature of his statements, but in each "incivil" statement, I see a competent if not tough net positive who would be a great admin. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 04:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C F A 💬 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Finally 🥳 This has been on my watchlist for awhile. Glad to see it turn blue. Folly Mox (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Hello, based department? Yes, this is that guy I've been telling you about... jp×g🗯️ 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of concerns about his zealousness, I will simply say: if someone is responsible for almost a dozen featured-article stars being on as many articles (including some true big boys like Genghis Khan and Byzantine Empire), I suspect he probably knows what he's talking about with respect to articles meeting or failing our quality criteria. Fain to give succor for a dozenscore more of him! jp×g🗯️ 23:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I didn't know they aren't one.--NØ 22:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support plenty of impressive content work and a very pleasant person to interact with. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After seeing some of the diffs raised, I think it's unfortunate that others haven't had the same level of good experiences with Airship as I have. Still supporting as I'm still confident in them... but I do see why others would feel differently. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Oh heck yeah. As much as I resent your inevitable Wikicup victory (/j) this is such a welcome surprise. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Absolutely. For those of you in the back, they got Genghis Khan to FA. Kind, competent, just an awesome editor. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. one step closer to reestablishing the Mongol Empire through the medium of wikipedia ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Every interaction I've had with them has left me impressed. Strong content creation, clearly competent, kind. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Great past interactions, will be great for the role. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. AirshipJungleman29 is one of those rare Wikipedians who has that sixth sense for content, and I'm not just talking about the many FAs and GAs that adorn their userpage like a decorated general. I know their work best at DYK, where they are one of the most active promoters of all time, and I can't overstate how impressed I am with their work there. AJ's understanding of how articles are supposed to be structured and written, and determination to make sure others' articles meet that standard, has had significant and measurable positive impacts on DYK and GA. Even when we disagree – especially when we disagree – I've always found them to be reasonable, knowledgeable, and willing to admit mistakes, and they always have the best interests of the project at the heart of their position. Happily offering my strong support! :D theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Was looking forward to this for a while Mach61 23:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Airshipjungleman does incredible work at good article reassessments. I don't know how he does it, given how much crap he has to put up with from people with WP:OWN issues there, particularly from the roads and mathematics areas that often have some of the lowest quality GAs and the most disruptive GAR participants keeping it that way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I've reviewed deleted edits and (logged) csd tags back to the start of the year. I've got some minor quibbles about pages tagged U5 that technically didn't qualify (though all did as G11s), and some user pages whose image on Commons should've been tagged for speedy deletion after the page here was deleted, but this is the only thing I found that I'd consider a genuine error. I'd advise continuing to csd-tag pages that are that borderline instead of just speedying them unilaterally, but that's best practice anyway. No other concerns; thank you for the self-nom. —Cryptic 00:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Airship is a regular at DYK and their work there is mostly what I know about them. I don't always agree with their decisions on nominations, but I've never seen them do anything truly outrageous, and they're the kind of person with whom you can disagree and still have a reasonable conversation about your differences. DYK is short on admins and giving AJ a mop will be a big help to the project. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i can think of several admins more uncivil than airship, so... ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean that they should. ✶Quxyz✶ 01:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are such admins, then someone should collect some diffs and get that taken care of. It would be completely backwards if there are incumbent admins who would fail at RfA while milder violations block new candidates. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they won't get taken care of. ltbdl☃ (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Template:Ta": that's because RfA is a bloodsport that encourages pile-ons to take people down while AGF flies out of the window. No-one on this site is perfect, but that's the standard some people seem to want from admin candidates or admins - and that's exactly why we have a shrinking pool of them. Why people voluntarily put their names up for this character assassination rubbish I really don't know. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: Some of the opposes raise valid concerns and I've disagreed with the candidate's decisions in the past. However, we need qualified, composed, and competent admins. AirshipJungleman29 is all three and I trust in the mop's power to guide those who wield it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Content work seems outstanding. I've also looked at the stuff linked by Lightburst and J947 and have skimmed through the nominee's talk-page archives, and I frankly don't see anything disqualifying. Disagreement, no matter how laconic, is not incivilty. As constitutionally laconic myself, I found most of Airship's comments refreshingly succinct. Deor (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, somewhat per Deor and RoySmith. They need to watch the spikiness, but most of their work is to a very high standard. Some lols in the diffs produced by the opposers, & if I was ever tempted to become a mentor, this has cured me. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Per nom. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 03:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirshipJungleman29#c-TyphoonAmpil-20240927035500-Oppose †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 03:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Straight and blunt talking, yes, which they may need to temper when doing some admin work, but a very solid candidate who is competent, has excellent judgement, is reasonable, understands what content is and how WP works best. - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support I want to park myself here for now to encourage the candidate to stick it out and not be spooked by the early onset of opposes. Many are ill-judged, reactive, or flimsy. Wait for cooler heads to come in and give a more considered evaluation. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Great work on working systematically through old GA articles to reassess them. They actually make GA mean something. Trust them to keep on the right side of tone if admin. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, After reading though all the opposes, all the supports and checking the diffs referenced I believe he would be a significant net positive. It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Moral support. Thanks for all your good work. Andre🚐 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose as someone who saw the nominee go after so many GAs of roads for iffy reasons. I cannot in good faith support Airship. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU, are you able to provide more evidence of these accusations (links to AN or talk page discussions, reviews, etc.)? Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I can. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs show him closing discussions. He only nominated one of the three. Also, can you please elaborate on why the reasons were iffy? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @LilianaUwU: I'm not sure I understand your characterization of these examples as "go[ing] after [...] GAs of roads for iffy reasons". Your first example, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Interstate 85 in North Carolina/1, was closed by the nominee but not nominated by them, nor did they participate in the process other than to ask the nominator a question and to request an editor seeking to improve the article respond once they were done with all fixes rather than partway through. Your second example, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/A4232 road/1, was also closed by the nominee but not nominated by them, and indeed nobody other than the person who initially nominated the article for reassessment participated in the process. Your third example, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Roads and freeways in metropolitan Phoenix/1 was nominated by the nominee for what seems to me like fairly clearly outlined reasons. Is there something I am missing? TompaDompa (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, Lightburst's concerns about civility are more than enough for me to oppose, even if my original reasons aren't good enough. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 00:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose It is a hard no from me x 10. I may offer ups some diffs later to show just how snarly and dismissive AirshipJungleman29 has been to me and many other editors. Congrats for the work they do but there is no way they should be an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not have the right temperament and also assumes bad faith. I worked in WP:DYK so I often see them being curt with other editors. When the DYK editors were building a set of Christmas related hooks, Airship added a hook that did not fit the theme. After some discussion and agreement that the hook should not be in the set an admin removed it, so Airship reverted the admin. Even the nominator admitted that it was not related. A time suck ensued and it took a another admin to remove the hook again.
    Next Airship displays a hostile attitude with others at DYK like this disappointing message. Recently AirshipJungleman29 mocked me when I came to them with a concern, saying "Thanks Yoda.". AirshipJungleman29 is an editor who knows their way around but makes abrupt unilateral decisions, like in the case of this article I have at DYK now. For some reason Airship likes to remove all section headings and create a wall of text. From what I have seen they do not discuss before jarring changes. I also noticed this same misunderstanding of MOS:OVERSECTION with another DYK article, Phyllis Boyens and that heading removal was undone by an admin. I just saw the link in question 4 above that shows similar. Read their talk page history and WT:DYK history. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though most of your points may be good, it seems a bit unfair not to mention the full context of the "Thanks Yoda." comment. You had just posted on his talk page, with the title being "Pointy" and the first sentence reading "Your RfA vote is". I think that at least, was a continuation of an apparent joke, one that you made.
    Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Lightburst. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose after repeated testy interactions with ASJ regarding GARs in 2023 and earlier that appear not to have been resolved (see User talk:David Eppstein/2024a#Holding a grudge). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support 100%. Changing vote to oppose after seeing the disappointing revisions posted above and below, all of which were very recent. I commemorate their content creation, it's great that we have someone working on this kind of content, but I just don't think they are what we should expect out of an admin upon further consideration... λ NegativeMP1 22:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose The diffs provided above are all I needed to see. SirMemeGod  00:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wasn't going to vote but after clicking on this rfa I came to the conclusion that the candidate was not prepared for admin bit at this time. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose: Overall, Airship is well-qualified to be an admin. My concern, like others, regards attitude. In Q3, Airship admits they have been "chastised for ... being too passive-aggressive in heated discussions", though seems to claim they have moved past this behaviour. However, their talk page provides evidence to the contrary. Additionally, I'm far from less than impressed with their communication with newbies on their talk page through the mentorship program. I'm not satisfied with communication at this time. ETA: The quick responses I saw aren't damning, but combined with more severe comments linked elsewhere, I don't feel comfortable saying Airship has the temperament at this time. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significa liberdade, could you specify regarding the responses to mentorship questions? I only saw boilerplate type responses, and I'm wondering if that's your concern or if I missed something more severe. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Thebiguglyalien! There's nothing severe, and I wouldn't bring it up if all other communication was good as it feels a bit nitpicky. I just didn't find the responses all that welcoming, especially as the voice of Wikipedia working with new editors. When working with new editors, it's helpful to have all the information easily accessible and help them feel safe asking questions. I didn't feel as if the responses always did that, especially one that curtly stated, "The links on your talk page might be helpful", which comes off a bit passive aggressive to me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per Lightburst. Fantastic content creation work. Major concerns about temperament. Particularly unhappy with the assumptions of bad faith presented. — GhostRiver 02:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per above concerns but my own experience with this editor wasn't good. He clerked an administrative closure request despite not being an admin.[1] When asked, he was not responding on his talkpage.[2] Being unresponsive when questioned about their actions is not something we prefer, let alone expecting it from an editor who wants to become an admin. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given only one uninvolved editor made a comment on the TBAN proposal in question before it was archived, AJ made the right call here – the discussion didn't receive enough input or interest to warrant a closure. – Teratix ₵ 04:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal was unopposed. Admins are the only ones allowed to moderate such requests, not non-admins. You are ignoring that he ignored the discussion on his own talk page contrary to WP:COMMUNICATE. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't discuss anything with airship, you showed up on his talk page and accosted him with fabricated rules. Something you're also doing here with [a]dmins are the only ones allowed to moderate such requests .... Citation needed. The instructions on the page state twice that [a]ny uninvolved editor may close most discussions ... and that [n]on-admins can close most discussions (emphasis in original). This excepts discussions ... where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. That doesn't apply here. The thread was archived without action; consensus to implement a ban was inadequate; half-a-dozen directly contacted admins didn't think enough of the thread to even respond. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is too incoherent and does not  address the two major concerns about why a non-admin should close a thread that is specifically dealt with by the admins and why an editor should avoid responding to that concern even when it was raised on their own talk page. The concerning request was placed under the section "Administrative discussions" and thus could be only closed by an admin. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose this self-nomination on basis of disturbing revelations about behavior and temperament. Try again after several years of non-contentious editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  12. Weak Oppose Ok edits. Few non-constructive edits. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 03:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose sigh... Sorry, but I must oppose on multiple conditions, more-or-so relating to the above messages. I also have some suspicions on the ground of Bigg Boss Telugu, where another editor passed your responses as a little hostile. There are two more discussions I'm worried about, which was Bro what is your problem ? and Please slow your roll a bit. That said, even though you are an excellent editor, I must oppose on the grounds of your attitude. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose as nominator needs to work on their Wiki personality first Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Since it was opened this RfA has defied the recent trend by attracting a lot of early opposes; as of now they number half as much of the supports and I feel that after this !vote of mine they may increase till the inevitable early closure.

    Personally I have no problem with this editor. We haven't interacted much; most of what I turned up in the Editor Interaction Analyzer are edits to common noticeboards we frequent, DYK nominations that I've either made or reviewed and that he has generally closed. The one time he reviewed a nomination I had made neither of us had any problems with each other.

    Would that that held with other editors. From the diffs Lightburst collected, this one in particular made me recoil from my monitor.

    Having also been involved in DYK for a very long time, I have a lot of experience with Gerda both from reviewing her nominations and her reviewing mine. I have a lot of respect for her for this reason ...

    ... and that's why I'm utterly shocked at this. Not only is this a terribly abusive thing for one Wikipedian to say about another, it also greatly oversimplifies her contributions to the project (both here and at dewiki) to reduce them to repetitive hooks about opera singers. She has written, in fact, about many aspects of classical music, and well enough that we have a lot of quality work about performers and compositions that we might well not have otherwise. In both languages. I, for one, most emphatically do not find her hooks "catastrophically boring".

    Most troubling in the current context is that this outburst came, like so many of the other diffs linked above, within the past year. This cannot be excused here as some past bad patch long in the rearview mirror.

    Maybe at some point in the future the candidates's shortcomings will have fallen so far in that direction as for the quality of their work to stand out. But I cannot support now. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  16. Oppose I don't like the self-nomination, when they were offered a nomination at ORCP. And while I think ASJ has done some great content creation, that is (to me) not the most important for becoming an admin. Activity in admin areas is more telling and, in ASJ's case, mainly limited to DYK and closing discussions, and while those are important, I would expect more from an admin. Given this and the other's votes/links in those votes, I think this is a case of NOTYET. Nobody (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Over 37,500 edits and eight years of tenure and you're suggesting NOTYET? Wow... - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: Yes, as NOTYET says: lack sufficient experience in some important areas for administrators. Nobody (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don’t lack experience in those areas, given what they do at DYK. I’m not badgering your oppose—your opinion after all—but I think you’re pointing to the wrong bit of alphabetti spaghetti. - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose This is a bit of a gut reaction, but I don't want to see an admin wielding things like the response already cited above ([[3]), especially when addressed to this recipient. There may be a lack of understanding of the role and value of individual (very) long-term contributors and fellow editors, or just some callousness; I don't know. But don't be such a bitch to abundant content creators of unquestionable good faith. And this interaction is too recent to disregard. Great content creation themselves, but essentially, per Daniel Case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One might suggest that when a long term editor just doesn't listen and has to be told the same thing repeatedly, blunt and straightforward talking is exactly what is needed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Happy to wake up to a self-nom at RfA ~ i think portions of the community get bent out of shape over the hubris that must involve. Sad to say, though, that i oppose this particular candidate: I think that we will be far better served if they stick to the content they are clearly more than competent at producing and polishing, rather than what may well result from the creation of another potentially abrasive admin. Sorry. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 07:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose My interactions with this user have been nothing but negative. I am unable to support this user in the slightest after they targeted me in my last FAC nomination telling me to "grow up", as if I need their lecturing. Wikipedia users are well aware of the guideline that comments should be made on the material, not the user. I vehemently object to this. If this user can't treat me with respect, I doubt they'll do the same for newer users. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 07:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Looking at the concerns others have pointed out, AirshipJungleman's behavior over the past months and years is unacceptable. That is not how an admin should be acting once being given the mop. Yes, Wikipedia certainly needs more admins but, highly experienced users who engages in personal attacks or bad-mouths other editors are clearly not fit to become an administrator. This reply specifically, draws the line for me. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 08:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. When I saw that the editor described one of their own creations as close to perfect, I was motivated to read our article Hubris. The Thanks Yoda comment directed at an editor they disagreed with is astonishingly dismissive and uncollaborative. Who would want to be called a "small, green humanoid alien" even if the character is popular? Their ugly put-down of Gerda Arendt's efforts as catastrophically boring is shocking in its cruelty. I have ocasionally disagreed with Gerda, but have always tried to do so from a point of respect. There are few if any editors who are kinder than Gerda, and her topic area knowledge is outstanding and uncontested. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. The situations referenced in both my question and in the comment by J947 both happened this July. I'm sorry but it doesn't feel right to me to support the candidate at this time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. CAme here intending to support, but the diffs raised by Lightburst and David Eppstein concern me given situations AJ29 would face as an admin. Not enough to oppose, but I am concerned. I have no concern with Liliana's diffs as I believe that's an honest misread of the situation on Liliana's part. Star Mississippi 01:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not all the way over at oppose, but I'm not prepared to support this candidacy right now due to the recentness of some of the editor's conflicts. Admins do not have to be perfect, but I'd feel more comfortable with supporting despite conflicts if the also showed a recent history of trying to make things right. Admins need to reverse course on decisions sometimes because in the rush to fix a problem they might steamroller someone who only needs a gentle correction. <silly>Also, where is the plant editing? I got all the way down to articles with five edits in the mainspace and no plants! Try again in a year when you've put in some time working in the Forests of Wiki.</silly> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm going neutral here per SM and Clovermoss. I haven't had direct encounter with the candidate but have seen them working around. Excellent content creation which is a big plus one, but the diffs rasied and not AGF is not something I'd expect from a sysop. All my encounters with admins were excellent and they always made me feel at home. AirshipJungleman29 needs to cool down a little bit more and the recent diffs aren't promising. And that's a minus one. Hence going neutral. Good luck next time and happy editing :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • I have some conflicted feelings about this nomination. Reading SchroCat’s !vote, I do agree that AirshipJungleman29 is a helpful editor, and I believe they’ve done their best to improve the quality of the encyclopedia in the areas that they work in. But their choice of words often does not reflect the kind of behavior most editors would expect to see from an administrator. Not that they would be a bad administrator in other regards, but good, civil communication is a crucial aspect of Wikipedia’s editing experience, especially for administrators.
    I know that I’ve made some comments in the past in frustrating situations that appear uncivil to me now, comments I wouldn’t write today even in such situations. Over time I learned how important it is to edit collaboratively. Wikipedia isn’t like other websites (social media sites, for example, where incivility is rather common); civility and collaboration are two of the most important aspects of working with others. So I know personally that improving one’s communication skills isn’t too hard, and although eight years of editing does show that these issues have been a long term thing, I’m in agreement with Daniel Case that at some point in the future I’d be willing to support an adminship nomination for AirshipJungleman29.
    For now, though, the very recent diffs posted above do not convince me to support this nomination. If this nomination fails, I advise AirshipJungleman29 to spend the next one or two years interacting with other editors as often as they do today, while being civil and refraining from accusing editors of acting in bad faith (unless the bad faith is blatantly obvious of course). If AirshipJungleman29 shows that they are able to consistently communicate civilly with others even in stressful situations for that period of time, I’d support their next nomination. Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify on my !vote, I don't think AJ29 is uncivil in their communication, but they can be blunt and straightforward. I don't have a problem with blunt speakers - I much prefer it to the 'civil but disruptive' approach that is all too common with many editors. I do think, however, that once they get the mantle of adminship, they would learn from the comments here and temper some of the bluntness. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2024 (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 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.

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1247951677"