Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"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.

↓↓Skip to current nominations for adminship

Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators	Noticeboard Requests for adminship watch talk talk archives Administrator elections watch talk De-adminship Recall Adminship reform unbundling Successful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RfA Chronological Unsuccessful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RfA Chronological Resysopped administrators Inactive administrators Former administrators
Bureaucrats	Noticeboard Requests for bureaucratship Bureaucrat discussion Bureaucrat activity Successful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological
AdE/RfX participants	Advice for RfA candidates Guide Miniguide Optional RfA candidate poll RfA nominations Request nom Self-nomination Advice for voters Asking questions Arguments to avoid Debriefs
History & statistics	Adminship Candidacies by year Sucessful Unsuccessful AdE results Bureaucrat candidacies by year Chronological Chronological Desysoppings by month RfA reform RfA by year RfA by month
Useful pages	Searchbox RFX report Logs User rights log Old log Meta log Meta old log AdE category RfA category
Current admin count: 837 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 16 (list all)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.

Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).

Current time is 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page

Lua error in Module:RFX_report at line 63: bad argument #2 to 'format' (number expected, got nil).

Current time is 00:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page

Shortcuts

• WP:RFAWP:RFA
• WP:RFXWP:RFX

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 latest administrator election took place in July 2025, with the next election in December 2025.

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 Committee 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/A	%
KylieTastic	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	374	66	101	85
Kj cheetham	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	350	64	127	85
Ser!	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	314	91	136	78
Curbon7	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	293	87	161	77
Jlwoodwa	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	314	95	132	77
Smasongarrison	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	312	98	131	76
UndercoverClassicist	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	307	97	137	76
CoconutOctopus	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	315	110	116	74
Hinnk	AE	Successful	31 Jul 2025	260	100	181	72
Hilst	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	233	117	191	67
Pbritti	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	250	126	165	66
Patient Zero	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	250	130	161	66
Usernamekiran	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	232	127	182	65
Darth Stabro	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	167	205	169	45
North8000	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	108	323	110	25
Vestrian24Bio	AE	Unsuccessful	31 Jul 2025	56	341	144	14

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

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.^[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

• WP:MONITORWP:MONITOR

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 if there is one. 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 00:28:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

AzaToth

Final (54/20/8) ending 23:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

AzaToth (talk · contribs) – Most of my time here, I usually try to help, so my count of genuine articles isn't the highest. The most I have done is wikifying articles and stub-sorting. Otherwise I have been most in template space, helping creating useful templates people want or might want (I sadly created a lot of controversy by creating {{qif}} etc...), and a lot in project space, for example writing and editing help pages at meta, closing at WP:TFD. I think personally that wikipedia could get more help from me if I got adminship. _→AzaToth 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: per selfnomination I accept. _→AzaToth 23:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Of course. Thank you. --Ligulem 00:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Capable and worthy of our trust. Sarge Baldy 00:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Looks like a great administrator-to-be. Tutmosis 00:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. The nominee's low mainspace edit count is misleading because he contributes to articles indirectly by editing templates. Admin tools would help him because a lot of high-profile templates, including several that he has created, are protected. He will also likely show good judgement at WP:TFD, since he has plenty of experience with templates. There is no reason not to trust him with adminship. --TantalumTelluride 00:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - Has made numerous exemplary herculean contributions. Great Wikipedian. --CBDunkerson 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Great # of contributions and a lot of contributions to the WP namespace. Keep up the editing! --J@red ^[T]/_[+] 00:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support. Trustworthy user, specialist in template space, and we will all benefit from his having admin tools. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support specialized admins. Editor is a "god of templates", which makes him mop-worthy. I trust him not to use the mop in areas where he less familiar. I would like more thorough answers to the questions, though. Xoloz 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Robert McClenon 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Strong support. I think the template work has been extremely useful and even just the reason of wanting to edit protected pages is enough reason for me. AzaToth's behind-the-scenes work to improve Wikipedia and provide tools to that end are a bigger benefit to the project than one more administator concerned with debating policy. No reason to suspect he will abuse admin privledges, and adminship is no big deal, right? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support This user shows that he can be trusted. - Richardcavell 02:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support I have very little to do with the template pages, but it looks like he's done good work there. JoshuaZ 02:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per TantalumTelluride and Richardcav. Joe 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Strongest possible support, absolutely great template editor and wonderful to work with. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support, I see no problem with this user. JIP | Talk 07:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support per Xoloz who always seems more capable at making my arguments than I am. Hiding talk 10:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support. Qif is protected anyway, so I suppose AT needs adminship to do his job! Good potential admin, in any case. haz (user talk) 14:10, 20 March 2006
20. Support We need more admins. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Seems like this fellow has a genuine need for the tools, and that people trust him. It would be better if we could just hand him the ability to edit protected pages, but since we can't, well, I'm sure he won't abuse the other tools. --kingboyk 15:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support After further review of this candidate, I've decided to change my vote from "Oppose" to "Support".   mmeinhart 17:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support, for all his great template work. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - I don't usually vote, but; AsaToth has good uses for the tools. Go to it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
25. Support I see no evidence that this nominee will abuse his admin tools.--MONGO 00:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support good admin candidate --rogerd 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support no reason to believe AzaToth will abuse admin privilleges, also shows initiative in wanting to serve the project in such capacity. --Jay(Reply) 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - templates are just as important as articles, since most articles have templates. Mostly per kingboyk. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per above. --Khoikhoi 05:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. Writing articles isn't for everyone. Doing amazing magic voodoo with templates isn't for everyone either, but it is for AzaToth. He's contributed a lot to Wikipedia on the meta-level, in places where it needs it, and the ability to edit protected templates would let him contribute even more. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support.  Grue  19:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Apparently a controversial nomination here... I don't quite get why though. Reasons given seem valid, user seems worthy. Give Carl the mop... Support ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support --Latinus 23:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. per CBDunkerson, who has good opinions. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support --Terence Ong 09:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, perfectly valid reasons for requiring admin tools. Far more valid than the countless editors who breeze through RfA with 60+ supports and no opposes, gained by toeing the line, never being bold, taking care to always support other's RFAs (at least, until they become admins themselves), and doing virtually nothing in article space but vandalism reverting, which confers no more knowledge of article editing than AzaToth has. Proto||type 13:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support. Merits the mop. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support per Xoloz. the wub "?!" 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support I agree with CBDunkerson and Doug Bell. Template work is extremely important; at least as, if not more so, than main page edits. --Mmounties (Talk)   02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support - The fact that he does not want to use the admin tools extensively does not mean he should not have them. Admin powers will probably come in handy during the course of his template work - they'll be a tool for what he already does, not a new job. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support - I Don't agree with any reason given by those who oppose his candidacy. His work is important. --hydkat 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support An oppose, for me at least, would be to underestimate AzaToth's hard work behind the scenes. Good candidate! - Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 08:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support, looks like a very valuable user who could make good use of the tools. Leithp 09:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support per rspeer and supporting useful, non-cookie-cutter candidates. No one objecting seems to have anything more strenuous to say than "299 article edits?!?!?", totally disregarding his otherspace edits. -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Obviously a bit of a specialist in template space. Low article count in this context doesn't trouble me. Would definitely be an asset to WP with admin tools. Need to improve use of edit summaries though. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support: Editing protected templates seems like a good reason to me, and there's no evidence he'll misuse admin tools. TimBentley 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Seems trustworthy, needs admin tools to edit permanently protected templates, adminship is no big deal. Enjoy your mop. — Omegatron 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support The inventor of {{qif}} should be able to continue its development, and the development of all protected templates. Plus, I don't see any way he could misuse adminship, so why not? --M@thwiz2020 00:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support: helpful and friendly, even if I can't always follow him into the realms of template genius . HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. I'm amazed with the low main namespace edit count, 'cause I remember seeing AzaToth here and there, but I still support per his answer to Q4 (myself also hardly being able to find any issues to write about). Misza13 ^{T C} 11:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. Locking templates to guard against mass vandalism, if nothing else, will be useful.--HereToHelp 03:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Strong Support -- This is not your average candidate. Please support this active and competent template editor; do not force him to make article edits outside of his competence in order to succeed at a later date. He's not entirely sure what he'll do with the tools, but I trust his good sense of workmanship. John Reid 05:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, he does know one thing he'll do with the tools: maintain the many templates he's created that are now indefinitely protected. That reason is enough for me. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 05:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53. Support This user will use the admin. abilities to the good of Wikipedia and can be trusted with them. Jedi6-(need help?) 07:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support; a lot of good work with templates, and he would do good work with the tools. Ral315 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Come back when you want to actually DO something with admin tools - your answers below don't show any current desire of that type Cynical 00:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Well you are definitely living up to your username, care to give a less snide and rude reason to oppose? Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 00:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Everyone, please mind WP:CIVIL. Moe ε 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry, but I hade some trouble formulate a good answer, I can try to reformulate me tomorrow, but now I have to go to sleep. _→AzaToth 01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry folks, this was not intended as an attack on AzaToth - quite the opposite, I think he's a great Wikipedian having read some of his talkpage contributions, I just don't see any intention to use admin tools to do anything in AzaToth's answers, therefore I don't see the point in awarding them Cynical 18:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Oppose Not enough actual article editing. Only 299 edits to main namespace. Low communication with other editors too. No clear-cut knowledge of policies shown. And his answers to the admin questions aren't very convincing either. Sorry, but IMO, you should retry when you become more involved as a whole on Wikipedia rather than based solely around template editing, although you're doing a fantastic job with that. :-) Moe ε 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose Per Cynical, honestly these tools are to clean house, protected pages do not stay protected for long and there is no need to grant sysop rights just to edit them. Formulate new answers and I will revise my decision tomorow. Mike _{(T C)}   01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, you are incorrect about the length of protection in this case. There are dozens of templates which have been protected continuously for months now. Thus, admin access is fairly often a requirement for performing the sort of template work AzaToth does. It is amusing to note that there are several templates which he created that he now does not have the access to maintain. --CBDunkerson 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Just in case it's not been made clear elsewhere; certain templates will remain protected for a long time period in order to prevent one abusive edit causing serious problems across the 'pedia. Rob Church 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. Oppose While I do like his work on templates, and disposition, I feel he needs more mainspace edits. --Masssiveego 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Your answers to the questions are a bit weak and vague. In question one, you don't indicate why you feel the ability to edit protected articles is important. And given that you don't edit too many articles in the first place, I'm not sure why you would need that. joturner 01:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Note that many of the template pages are protected. Needing to edit protected pages doesn't imply a need to edit protected article pages. Plus, many of the protected templates are permanently protected. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't think of that. But I still believe the answers are weak overall and thus am staying with Oppose. joturner 04:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose not enough article edits, question answers are woolly.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Sorry, but a big no for me. Self-nom is usually a minus, and you have very few article edits. Also, as said above, your question answers are quite shaky and short. Weatherman90 03:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per Moe ε. Of the 299, a large portion are stub sorting and reversions, too. ×Meegs 05:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose strongly per above and more. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose per Moe - Aksi great 12:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose: Sorry, but 300 edits to the main article space don't show enough experience. Please keep building the encyclopedia, using an edit summary every time, and in time this will come. Jonathunder 23:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Sorry you have not yet met my minimum standards. Changing vote to support.   mmeinhart 16:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per Jonathunder - with thanks for all the hard work on the templates - just not enough yet in all facets of wikipedia for me to support Trödel 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Need nore article edits. 69% of edit summary usage looks not high enough to me.--Jusjih 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose for edit summaries and count. -M^ask   03:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose, nowhere near enough edits in main article space, and concerns about edit summaries. Stifle 15:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per Moe. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (switched to neutral)Fantastic template editor, but you need more experience in other editing spaces. To produce less than 400 edits in mainspace and expect admiship is an bit of an insult to other, more active editors with edit counts that would make one's eyes water. -Zero^Talk 21:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per Moe and Megaman Zero. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose per Moe. –Joke 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Very Strong Oppose. Meets most of my requirements but has <500 main edits (article edits) I mean really. What's the point of supporting someone with <500 main edits and yet she has >1000 template and >900 project edits. Comment:EDIT A LOT MORE!!!!   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Your question was answered in the discussion that has been taking place on this page (see comments). Perhaps you didnt' read them before casting your vote? --Mmounties (Talk)   18:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20. Strong Oppose lack of mainspace edits. Computerjoe's talk 20:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. Neutral Despite his great contributions to templates which helps the project, less than 300 edits and the answers to the q's below need to be improved upon. Gizza^{Chat ©} 06:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral Agree with DaGizza. Just short of my Yes vote criteria--Looper5920 08:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral In all honesty I thought AzaToth was already an admin, and I don't see any real reason to oppose. However, the answers to the questions below cause me to 'vote' neutral. Prodego ^talk 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Perhaps later. - Mailer Diablo 13:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. His work on templates is breathtaking, and he's made it much easier for the rest of us. However, he is not a very active user in terms of article space edits. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose, I'm afraid. Changed to neutral. Weak answers to questions, rather cliché nomination and he doesn't have enough main or Wikipedia namespace edits; interaction in either area is important to my mind. Rob Church 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   As this here is a discussion about giving Carl the sysop bit (and not a mere voting), I'll deposit some of my thoughts about your opposition. As you are one of the developers you have a good understanding of the technical matter that relates to this candidacy. Therefore you have a bit a higher responsibility when stating your opinion. As you are one of the "hidden" opposers of qif, I assume your bad faith here in opposing Carl. Instead of having taken part in the discussion at WP:AUM you appear on the RFA's opposing admin candidates that have an opinion which does not conform to yours. You guys have tried to fight against that qif, but you have failed. On the en Wikipedia more than 100'000 articles depend indirectly on qif today. This is a fact. You can oppose wherever you want and be against whoever you want, qif will not vanish by this. As you obviously believe the damage that Carl would do with the sysop bit to Wikipedia outweighs his potential benefit, I assume you will put qif on your watchlist and take care of it personally, as your are better suited for this task. You are responsible for it, due to the fact that you hinder attempts to effectively protect qif. Ah, yes, I forgot, that's one of the arguments of the qif opposers, the vandal vector. Really great. Good luck! --Ligulem 17:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Outrageous. I don't like meta-templates, but I don't care, either. I oppose candidates who I feel do not demonstrate qualities suitable to be an administrator. This response shows an appalling lack of good faith. I do not oppose people on the basis of their opinions and never have done. I am rather angered that anyone could consider that to be the case, and I am frankly appalled at the thoroughly foul attitude of this response, and I am appalled at your childish and rude tone. I would like an apology. Rob Church 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   "You are responsible for it due to the fact that you hinder attempts to effectively protect [it]." What a load of bollocks. I re-read your comment and now I am angry. You are completely out of order. Rob Church 18:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Neutral. pschemp | talk 15:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Fantastic template editor, but you need more experience in other editing spaces. To produce less than 400 edits in mainspace and expect admiship is an bit of an insult to other, more active editors with edit counts that would make one's eyes water. Changed to neutral, I find the canidate's calm attitude and honest nature sastisfying. I understand his qualm about not contributing to mainspace.-Zero^Talk 16:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Edit summary usage: 69% for major edits and 69% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 100 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 00:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See AzaToth's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• I would ask everyone not to apply the usual 'cookie cutter' standards to this candidate. No, he is not an exact clone of every other admin... but he is an outstanding Wikipedian. People looking at 'main space edits' should consider that templates created or updated by AzaToth are used in hundreds of thousands of main space pages. No, he doesn't spend alot of time editing articles, but because of the templates his work is probably used in more articles than that of any other Wikipedian. Our admins should not all have to contribute in the same ways... often it is the ones who contribute in ways others do not who are the most valuable. --CBDunkerson 02:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely agree with CBDunkerson—in fact, if I applied my own standards for adminship, I would vote oppose. However, AzaToth's work with templates has been a great enabler and provided fantastic examples for my own work with templates. I think the issue with adminship rests on two questions that each editor needs to decide when voting:

  1. Can the user be trusted to use admin powers responsibly and for the good of the encyclopedia?
  2. Are granting admin privileges to the user going to benefit the encyclopedia?

  For me, the clear answer to both questions is yes. (Note that while I've had no direct interactions with the nominee, this is the first nominee that I've given strong support because the work he has done has been of such a great benefit and it is valuable in large part precisely because it is different than what most editors are doing.) —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have changed my vote from "oppose" to "support" mainly in light of the proceeding comments made by User:Doug Bell.   mmeinhart 19:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

• Seems like those citing "minimum standards" and edit counts in the "main space" are making quite arbitrary judgements. If those same minimum standards were applied to editing on templates and template talk pages, almost no sysops would be qualified to carry the mop. Therefore, they are very lop-sided. AzaToth has an interest in templates. He has not completely ignored the rest of Wikipedia, but he has an interest in templates and that's what he's good at. Most current sysops, and most of those who voted here so far, have an interest in writing articles, editing articles and discussing them. AzaToth has an interest to work on templates, edit them and discuss them on the Template talk pages. So please explain to me, what makes the contributor better who has an interest in military history, and who will therefore automatically accumulate all those "main space" edits that satisfy the so often quoted minimum standards, but who pretty much ignored template work alltogether, what, prey tell, makes him more qualified than the contributor who's project page is not Military History or German Translations but rather Templates, and who has therefore contributed mainly to templates while, by the way, still accumulating a fair number of edits in the main space? Those minimum standards are worrysome, to say the least. More so, I dare say, they're discriminatory. They say that article editors are better and worth more than those who do work on the infrastructure that is used in all those articles. Therefore, please take note: Template work affects all the other -spaces in the pedia. Yes, all of them. It should therefore count at least as much as edits to the main space. --Mmounties (Talk)   03:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  For my part I guess I'm putting faith in the 'crat that closes this to see that main-space article edits is the only significant objection of just about every oppose vote, yet AzaToth is not requesting adminship to preside over article space matters. His request is mostly narrowly focused on obtaining the tools he needs to best continue his valuable and somewhat unique contributions to the encyclopedia. So in deciding whether to grant the mop, the oppose votes do not need to be discounted, but rather, the issue needs to be decided whether AzaToth's narrowly focused request for adminship is worthy of granting privileges that are "no big deal". Nobody has raised any concerns about whether AzaToth is trustworthy, nor whether he does good work that benefits the 'pedia. So the question is simply whether or not adminship should be granted for the narrow purpose of furthering AzaToth's template work, not one of his worthiness to weild the mop for that purpose. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Outrageous. I hate these sorts of quibbles with people's objections. I know these comments are not targeted exclusively at my vote, but for me lack of mainspace edits is not a problem if I see strong evidence of needing administrator tools or clear evidence that the user is thoughtful and unlikely to abuse admin tools (either with prior experience mediating conflicts, thoughtful answers to RfA questions, or demonstrated prior experience with policy issues). I don't see this here. I am convinced, based on the numerous support votes here, that AzaToth is a great editor, but I stand by my vote (per Moe and Rob Church's neutral vote). To say that it all reduces to mainspace edits is rubbish. –Joke 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know if you were directing your outrageous remark at me, but I wasn't quibbling with people's objections, and in fact said that they should not be discounted. I just think it's not an issue at this point with how many more people don't think that AzaToth doesn't have enough article edits—heck, I don't think he does either for general-purpose admining. I think the question is whether his non-article purpose is valid, which obviously I'm swayed by. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully agree with Doug. AzaToth's not asking for sysop tools to start banning people and get involved in sorting out revert wars. From what I read between the lines, he'd run for dear life before getting into anything like that. Main space edits are a fairly good indicator for sysops that work in updating and adding articles. The point I was trying to make is, you can't measure a specialist by the rules you apply to generalists (i.e., editors in the encyclopedia). That would be tantamount to requiring the applicant for a Chief Financial Officer position at a hospital to go to medical school and get an MD first. It would be nonsense because he doesn't need a medical degree but rather experience in the field of finance. Same thing here. It just doesnt' make sense to apply the same measuring stick to a template specialist that would be perfectly fine if applied to a generalist. Along the same lines, our RfA questions are really geared toward main space editors. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that AzaToth's answers don't sound particularly great to many who have read them. - AzaToth needs sysop tools to do his work on templates. That's the bottom line. And that's why he should get them. --Mmounties (Talk)   23:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A. I often read the administrators noticeboards, and even if I can't do anything, I usually find it relevant to know what's going on. I have closed a couple of discussions on TFD, so it's logical that I continue my work on such areas (MFD and TFD mostly, or perhaps AFD also).

Because I have a somewhat good insight into how mediawiki works, I think my work here would benefit from being able to edit protected pages (templates and mediawiki space for example).

Otherwise I would probably do the usual RC-patrol and simlar to protect and unprotect pages as needed for the wikipedia to function optimally.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. As stated, my edit count in the main space isn't the highest, this is mostly because I have usually worked behind the scene, trying to improve for others. One other reason for the relatively low edit count there could be that I usually have a problem finding anything to write about, perhaps this is psycological, but I always think that what I could write about is non-notable. If I have to choose, I would say that I helped some at Leet and Jamtlandic.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A. I'm not foolproof, for example when WP:AUM was hot, I sadly found myself in conflict with others, as I tried to explain my point of view on technical grounds, I felt that no one listened. But luckly I managed to calm down, and let the time have it's pace (I don't know what I just wrote here, but...). The best way to avoid conflicts is to ignore yourself, and try to look at the problem in a such objective way as possible. So now sometimes, even if my inner ego assumes bad faith, I'll try to force my mind to assume the opposite.

4. Some editors in this RfA have expressed concern over a lack of mainspace edits. Do you have any specific response to those concerns? Thanks, JoshuaZ 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. I can understand those concerns, and I'll try to explain. The main reason is that I have had trouble finding specific issues to write about. My area of expertise is computer science, and because of some reason, there are already a lot of data in that area, finding anything new to write about I find rather tricky. Perhaps I could write a lot about Perl etc... but I don't know if people want such articles.

The above 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

Shortcut

• WP:RFBWP:RFB

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 requests for bureaucratship.

Related requests

• Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
• Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
• Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark a user as a bot can be at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
• A summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes, as well as a list of past cases of de-adminship, may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship

If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache.

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