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.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Asilvering	0	0	0	N/A	Discussion	09:15, 6 September 2024	5 days, 16 hours	no	report

Current time is 16:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Asilvering	0	0	0	N/A	Discussion	09:15, 6 September 2024	5 days, 16 hours	no	report

Current time is 16:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC). —

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 ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	RfA	Successful	15 Jun 2024	201	0	0	100
Elli	RfA	Successful	7 Jun 2024	207	6	3	97
DreamRimmer	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	31 May 2024	45	43	14	51
Numberguy6	RfA	Closed per WP:SNOW	27 May 2024	5	23	2	18

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). 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 and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.

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. 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". 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

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 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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 16:23:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Asilvering

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (0/0/0); Scheduled to end 09:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Asilvering (talk · contribs) – Today it is my pleasure today to present Asilvering to the community as a candidate for adminship. Asilvering came to my attention with their perceptive participation at Articles for Deletion. I looked into their contribution history, and found a diligent editor with a focus on content. Asilvering has contributed to four GAs; has created more than 40 articles, on topics as varied as newspapers, prison buildings, artists, and suffragists; and has chipped away at improving sourcing and content on many other pages. Asilvering has been involved at WP:GAN, conducting nearly 30 careful reviews and helping coordinate the two most recent backlog elimination drives. And they have been active at AfC, an area that sorely needs attention from competent editors, and where the admin tools can only be an asset. In their interactions with other editors Asilvering was unfailingly cordial and constructive. They express their opinions, but are always willing to revisit their own position, which is essential to a successful admin. In short, Asilvering is a content-focused editor who can make productive use of the tools, and I hope you join me in supporting their candidacy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I’ve known Asilvering foremost as an editor—a translator, a reviewer, a copy editor, a bibliographer, and an author—but lately I’ve come to see them as an admin. Asilvering has shown excellent editor foundations from their early reviews and writings related to women in the Paris Commune. Asilvering’s user talk page shows their progression into more public fora assisting new editors both in the Teahouse and Articles for Creation with admirable bedside manner. Their solid track record at Articles for Deletion shows the proper mix of “getting it right” and guiding to consensus without vote-stacking. From discussions at WT:@ and on articles, I enthusiastically trust Asilvering’s temperament for making policy-based judgment calls, and more importantly, to admit where they aren’t clued-in enough but will learn. I hope you’ll agree that Asilvering has much more to offer these areas of the project if given the admin tools. czar 01:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Asilvering is an excellent editor and content creator who fully meets my criteria for what makes a good admin: being kind to newer and experienced editors alike, open to feedback and having a clue. One aspect not yet highlighted above is the work asilvering does to make the GA process more accessible to newer editors, for instance in creating a GAN backlog drive with a focus on new reviewers. This in combination with their good work at AfC and AfD makes me fully confident we can trust them with the mop. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Nomination accepted. I can also confirm that I have never edited for pay, and that I have never had any accounts other than this one. asilvering (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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've been quite content as an "ordinary editor" with some extra perms (AfC reviewer, NPP, page mover), but I've come to feel that I ought to volunteer to lighten the load on the folks with the mop. I already occasionally close AfD discussions, and could do more of that; the last couple of times I've poked my head in to RfD there have been a bunch of clear "delete" results I could have cleared out if I were a sysop; I am a generally sensible person (or so I imagine, anyway) and am more than happy to be aimed at problems that need to be sorted out by a generally sensible person equipped with admin tools. I am not particularly interested in the kinds of admin tasks that require heavy use of the banhammer (chasing sockpuppets, vandals, and so on), but never say never.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: The noobs I helped along the way. No, but seriously: I remember fondly the people who were kind to me when I was new - though I doubt most of them remember me, since for them it was just an ordinary Thursday. I do what I can to pay it forward. To that end, I'm a WP:GTF mentor, I keep an eye on WP:TEA, and I handle WP:AFC drafts.

But I know that, conventionally, this is where I'm expected to foreground some content work. So I'll point readers at an article I recently rewrote from scratch, The Parson's Tale, which is the longest and most boring of the Canterbury Tales, and at a GA review I did recently on Émile Pouget, a revolutionary syndicalist whose slang-laced newspaper is rather more interesting than that.

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: No, not really. I've disagreed with other editors any number of times, certainly (just ask czar). I've given a handful of responses at WP:3O, and helped to sort out disputes on various talk pages. But this hasn't risen to the level of "conflict", and I don't find it stressful. Given the areas in which I tend to work, it's much more likely that someone is going to feel stressed because of me - because I've declined their draft, given them advice they've found frustrating, or so on. In my opinion, the best way to avoid this is to be patient and kind. I like to think I'm successful at this more often than not.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional question from Shushugah

4. Are there any Wikipedia:Contentious topics you would refrain from acting in an administrative capacity due to being Wikipedia:INVOLVED with your previous edit activity/participation?

A: Contentious topic area or not, I'm not going to be taking administrative actions where I'm WP:INVOLVED. Regarding contentious topics specicially, I haven't edited in any to such an extent that I'd consider the entire topic area involved by definition. I've worked on, for example, WP:GENSEX-related articles, but wouldn't consider myself to be capital-I "involved" with all of gensex because of that - that's a very broad topic area! And if there's a discussion that needs closing in any area of my specific editorial interest, I'll probably be far too obviously involved to do so - I'll be right there in the discussion myself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from TheNuggeteer

5. How did you come up with your name?

A: I'm afraid the answer to this question has been lost to time. I know that it took many tries before I came up with something that wasn't already taken. If you're asking what it means, well, that is an exercise best left to the reader; I have no idea. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The handle, however, pretty much resembles "a silver ring" if you think hard about it. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Dr_vulpes

6. What got you into AfC and what do you enjoy the most about it?

A: I joined in the first place because I occasionally came across drafts that I thought were obvious accepts, but which had been stuck in the queue for a long time. I wanted to save them from purgatory! Then I got to helping drafts over the line when they weren't quite there yet - adding reviews to book drafts to show they pass WP:NBOOK, confirming WP:NPROF notability, and so on. What I most enjoy about it is that it's a very high-impact way to improve the encyclopedia in a short amount of time: a whole new article exists where one didn't before, just because I pressed a few buttons, and an author finally gets to see their work go live. It's always rewarding to find a gem in the slush pile or to help a confused newbie find some confidence. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Slgrandson

7. In terms of subject classifications, what are your strengths and weaknesses as a Wikipedian?

A: Strengths: culture, history. Weaknesses: mathematics and logic, natural and physical sciences. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Conyo14

8. Hi there. Do you have an area of this encyclopedia, aside from AfC and AfD, you prefer to edit over others (i.e. sports, science, politics, history, etc.)?

A: There's my answer to the question above, but more specifically, I work on Russian revolutionaries, Communards, and Geoffrey Chaucer. -- asilvering (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Kingsmasher678

9. As a new editor, what would you say your greatest failings where, and how have you improved on them?

A: Well, I was a pretty competent newbie: I grew up on RTFM, so before I began I read the fucking manual. This saved me from any number of potential failures. If I could go back and give my newbie self some advice, it would be to change my AfD approach from a depersonalized one ("doesn't meet WP:GNG") to a personalized one ("I can't find any coverage that shows WP:GNG"). The vibes at AfD used to be rather more combative, and from my early experiences there I very much got the impression that the softer approach was highly undesirable. That impression was wrong. It's better to treat others as colleagues interested in discussion, regardless of whether they do so for you. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from LunaEatsTuna

10. Hi there! You mention some of your most significant article contributions; however, which would you say is your favourite and why?

A: Hm, I'd say the articles I mentioned earlier are more "representative" contributions than "most significant" ones. I'm fond of the short article I wrote on Eleanor Prescott Hammond. For favourites, well, don't tell the other articles, but I'm quite partial to Joseph Favre, an article mostly by Aymatth2, which I wrote the lead for and shepherded through GA on his blessing. It's "diabolically good". -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from LunaEatsTuna

11. How do you plan to balance your work as an administrator with continuing to mentor new users and participate in community discussions; do you plan on making any major changes regarding your contributions after you become an administrator?

A: I don't plan to make any major changes, but it probably won't take me too long to get interested in some backlog somewhere and set about learning how to deal with it. (Sorry in advance to the folks I would inevitably be peppering with questions.) First, though, there's the NPP backlog drive in September, and the GAN backlog drive in October. So I'll be busy with those for the next little while, and won't be likely to diverge much from the things related to AfC/AfD/NPP for the near future. -- asilvering (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from Nineteen Ninety-Four guy

11. How can editors with Good Article nominations expect a thorough review and not just another rubber-stamp approval in the upcoming backlog drive?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Asilvering: Asilvering (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Asilvering can be found here.

---

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

Support

Per a recent discussion, this request for adminship is in trial for a new voting system. Voting opens at 09:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.

Oppose

Voting opens at 09:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.

Neutral

Voting opens at 09:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments.

General comments

• Noting that I'm designating myself as a monitor for this RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you, TLC! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Wow. Good luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Running a GAN drive is a lot of mopping for very little thanks. CMD (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  ... and questionable return on investment. One might stay that 10 pretty good articles are more valuable (to readers) that a GA. Just sayin' Smokefoot (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Smokefoot, GA standards are pretty low. Any article that doesn't meet them probably isn't "pretty good". Also, people who don't have their work reviewed from time to time generally aren't going to be as good at writing on Wikipedia overall. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is a reasonable criticism of FAC but not GAN. if the content is reasonably good and all sourced, it will easily pass gan. (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  As a contra example, I give you History of penicillin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 14:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Appears to be a good candidate based on initial impressions. I just wish they'd had been in a conflict at least once so we knew how they would react under stress. But we can't hold that against them. Polygnotus (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have to say that I think their lack of any conflict gives a major indication on how they conduct themselves on the project. While it's true that most of us will experience something from time to time (something that we'd even consider not our fault), every time I've interacted with the candidate or reviewed any of their work and interactions with others, they conduct themselves very professionally and always maintain a focus on the project, policies, and facts. If I may quote the nomination, "In their interactions with other editors Asilvering was unfailingly cordial and constructive." This alone indicates to me, above anything else, that they would wield the mop in a professional manner that we ask of our admins. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  True. Based on a quick skim they seem to have carefully avoided the major danger zones. Could be a good sign, could be a bad sign, but in any case it makes it more difficult for me to form an opinion on their suitability. I enjoyed reading about The Queer Art of Failure. Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  i thought you were joking about hoping they'd been in a conflict... ltbdl☃ (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I genuinely believe Asilvering's lack of conflicts is a very strong indication of how they will carry themselves in all scenarios which is a rare quality, but there are plenty of recent admins who didn't have apparent conflicts to point to, only for them to react poorly and differently when they found themselves in a distressing and new situation. In general, disengaging and cooling off are good advice, but not always easy things specifically for an admin to follow. (Not excusing it, but trying to understand what I have observed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Impressionistically, good impressions in discussions all over the place; no yellow or red flags. If I see them in some article or project page in my watchlist, I know the right thing has been done (or a good opinion has been given), so I don't have to go investigate, if I'm busy elsewhere. When voting comes around in a few, will look into it in a more grounded fashion, but for now, nihil obstat. Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Are we still doing the two day wait thing? I do not need time to think about this one :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Last one before the trial period ends, assuming this doesn't snow out :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank goodness for that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let's hope so, hoping it's not a NOTNOW as well. George Ho (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good candidate for me, as I often see him/her in the AfD let's just see how he/she answer the questions before deciding. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Looks like I can cross a name off the list of people who I've been wanting to pressure into RfA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• You had me at "here we go". Thank you for stepping up and braving through this process. Looking forward to having you join the ranks of mop-pushers. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I know asilvering through AfC where they not only provide thoughtful feedback, both to submitters and about the process at AfC talk, they also consistently improve drafts by finding sources, expanding them and doing cleanup. In general, I would describe them as a very engaged editor in areas in which they are involved whether that be helping new editors, GAN, AfD, etc. I have no doubt they will be a thoughtful engaged admin as well. S0091 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Asilvering's work as a content creator, translator, reviewer, and drive coordinator in the GA-sphere has been phenomenal. A shout out to their participation at WP:Women in Green. In evaluating their ability to stay cool in tough situations, I'm mainly looking at their participation in this AN discussion from last year, in which they make obviously knowledgeable comments that balance a user's good-faith enthusiasm with the disruptive effects of her actions. Asilvering manages to be civil while not shying away from insightful criticism. Their comments were cited and appreciated by multiple other users. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Agreed.—Alalch E. 15:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Seconded. (Thirded? Whatevs...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I'm super excited about this nomination. The only thing that bothers me is that I didn't get to be a nominator! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Asilvering is a great editor who has gained a lot of experience pretty quickly, has strong knowledge of policy, is dedicated to helping out newcomers, and has an attitude that is basically perfect for an admin. I think I'm leaving town the day !voting opens, but I'll make sure to stop somewhere I still have signal so I can register a support. Folly Mox (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Looks good to me!--A09|(talk) 16:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I've never had a bad interaction with them and I do think they are more than qualified for adminship. Sohom (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• I know we aren't !voting yet, but this candidacy is one that I could stand by. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Very glad to see another strong RfA candidate. I've had plenty of positive interactions with them but would like to see them respond to technical questions related to adminship merely out of curiosity rather than concern. Best of luck; I am pretty sure where my !vote's going. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• One of the great, active members of WP:Growth team features, as evident by talk page discussions. In fact, I recently had a pleasant discussion with them. Panini! • 🥪 18:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Evacuate the city, engage all defences and get asilvering a mop. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Very happy to see a rationale for adminship so strongly grounded in content improvement. "Weaknesses: mathematics and logic" makes me sad, personally, but should not affect the case; we can't be all things to all people. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• We (understandably) can't just say "hell yeah", but content looks fine, not a jerk, has a clue, and good job with the GAN backlog drives. Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• I was left unimpressed by the only interaction I remember having had with the candidate. Evidently, I didn't seek to resolve all the differences, having got the admin intervention I was seeking. This would appear to be the perfect use case for the trial format. What do others think about what happened there? I would have been very unhappy indeed if the candidate was then an admin. On the other hand, maybe it's small potatoes if they're an outstanding candidate in every other way, as the rest of the comments seem to suggest. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  When I got NPP permissions I had to do a week worth of training, for AfC the training and expectations are much lower. For example compare the two flow charts for NPP and AfC. In spirit I'm right there with you, it is frustrating when lower quality articles get through AfC. Especially when the sources are in a language I don't know so I can't just fix it myself. But I feel that the way Asilvering handled that interaction was pretty chill and professional. I've had worse interactions on AfD over much lower stakes issues. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have no problem with the manner in which they responded. I was/am concerned by the substance of their arguments. As you say, AFC is a very low bar and we should expect AFC to make mistakes. When I bring something up to the community explicitly because I believe AFC has failed in the particular case, I expect the community to look into why AFC failed if it failed. That the candidate argued that AFC had not failed, that it was a perfectly fine article to promote to mainspace, and further, that if they'd found it had been declined, they would reprimand the reviewer and promote it to mainspace themselves, that's a serious cause for concern for me. They did not need to comment in that thread, but they chose to do so to say that it was a perfectly fine article. It was not. It was the kind of article that led me to investigate the contributors to that article, resulting in blocks for the creator and their various socks, and still further, investigation of one of the AFC reviewers, and discovery of almost a dozen UPE/COI articles that they had created or approved, an external website they were using to fabricate sources and a decently sized sockfarm of their own. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I reviewed the linked discussion, and find nothing concerning in it. It appears that you disagree with Asilvering about whether or not AfC reviewers ought to consider factors beyond notability, but their view is widely held, to the extent that it is directly and explicitly endorsed by the AfC reviewer instructions. No wikiphilosophy with that level of consensus should be considered disqualifying at RfA, and I concur with Dr vulpes that their attitude in the thread was perfectly fine. Sdkb ^talk 05:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, I do not have a philosophical difference with them. If you read the full page instead of just the section that you linked, you will see that there are many additional considerations that should result in an AFC fail even if a topic is notable (not that the topic was established to be notable): Step 1 has quick fail for "advertisements". In step 2, the draft would be declined for insufficient verification. In step 3, it would be declined as not meeting BLP requirements, and not adhering to a neutral point of view. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know, I read the whole thing and it still comes off like a philosophical difference. The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability only sets the low bar that content "must be verifiable". It's the norm and widely accepted best practice to cite reliable, independent, secondary sources with inline citations. In that discussion regarding, for example, being a "research fellow at the School of Medicine at the University of Maryland" I see one person saying it does not meet WP:V because the cited source doesn't state it, and another person saying that it does because checking the Unversity's website shows him "listed as a fellow". Those both come off as plausible readings of the policy. I also don't see them describing the article as "perfectly fine" but as fixable. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  As an AfC reviewer, the standard I was taught is that we accept an article if (1) it would probably survive an AfD on the strength of the sources in the article (which means, incidentally, that occasionally accepting articles that get AfD'd later is fine) and (2) the article is not hopelessly promotional or otherwise so bad as to be worse than nothing. If there's an issue with this, the issue is with the AfC criteria, not with asilvering. (The other thing I was taught, by example, is that unless you stick only to the easiest most clearcut cases, people will yell at you both for letting through too many articles and for not letting in enough.) Rusalkii (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• No issues AFAICS. Meets my personal yardstick for meeting the qualifications to wield the mop.   Aloha27  talk  14:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• I plan on supporting. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Reserving a spot for myself. Nothing bad so far. Mox Eden (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
• Good candidate, would likely support if I could. user:squorki | talk 16:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

---

About RfB

"WP:RFB" redirects here. For bot requests, see Wikipedia:Bot requests. For help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners.

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.

---

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
• Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.