Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. A user either submits his/her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

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

About RfA

The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and having a basic level of trust from other editors. The community looks for a variety of things in candidates, and everybody has their own opinion on this; for examples of what the community is looking for, look at some successful requests and some unsuccessful ones.

Decision process

Any user may nominate another user with an account. Self-nominations are permitted. If you are unsure about nominating yourself for adminship, you may wish to consult admin coaching first, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Also, you might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which time users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of that period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. This is sometimes difficult to ascertain, and is not a numerical measurement, but as a general descriptive rule of thumb most of those above ~80% approval pass, most of those below ~70% fail, and the area between is subject to bureaucratic discretion.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early, if a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit in leaving the application open. Only bureaucrats may close a nomination as a definitive promotion, but any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing; please don't close any requests that you have taken part in, or that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also de-list a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.

In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.

Expressing opinions

Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but IPs are unable to place a numerical "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any Wikipedians, including users who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), are invited to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions.

Nominating

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

Current nominations for adminship

About RfB

Bureaucrats are users with the ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any user and can grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}} into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is frowned upon (to the extent that canvassing editors have had their RfBs fail), some users find it helpful to place {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages. Such declarations are most definitely allowed.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

Useight

Voice your opinion (talk page) (26/12/3); Scheduled to end 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Useight (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) - Well, here I am, again standing for public scrutiny. I believe a brief introduction is in order. I've been an editor since 2006 and became an administrator on December 8, 2007. In my time here I've done a lot of WikiGnoming, started WikiProject Highly Active Users, done some anti-vandalism work, and created the pages listed at User:Useight/Pages, including my current project. Pertaining to bureaucratship, I am also a regular at RFA, I monitor the inappropriate username reports, and I clerk at CHU.

Why am I requesting bureaucratship? Well, as I have stated several times before, I have two purposes on Wikipedia: 1) To improve the encyclopedia; and 2) To help others improve the encyclopedia. I am requesting bureaucratship in order to increase my ability to do item number two.

Being that this is a second request, it is only fitting to discuss what I've done in response to the opposition during my first request. From what I gather, I was previously opposed for several reasons. First was my tenure as an admin. We're all quite familiar with the oft-used measuring stick of one year, which I hadn't met during my previous request. In fact, even now, I still have not met that criteria, having been an admin for only 361 days. So, if I haven't even met that simple criteria, why am I applying now? Because I'm nostalgic sometimes and today marks exactly two years since my first edit.

I was also opposed back in June because of my RFA standards. These standards were outdated, so I spent two weeks gathering my thoughts and restructuring them.

The third main reason for the opposition was my inexperience at BN, CHU, etc. I have since taken a much more active role in those two areas. I haven't done as much work at USURP or SUL, but there are fewer requests made there and, therefore, less need for clerking.

Finally, I was also opposed for my participation in admin coaching. I liked the opinions said and internalized them. I retooled my technique to become what I call "editor coaching". If you'd like to see how it has evolved, see User:Useight/Coachees.

Those who know me know I don't like rambling on like I have done here, so I will stop talking about myself. But I am open to any questions anyone may wish to pose and I invite the community to speak candidly. Useight (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a Bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A. I read all the discussions at WT:RFA and participate in quite a few of them myself. According to my understanding, the criteria for promotion is community consensus. Times when at least 70-75% of the community favors promotion (in an RFA) is usually indicative of this consensus. However, this 70-75% is typically considered the discretionary range in which the closing bureaucrat uses his/her judgement to ascertain whether a consensus exists. RFBs also have a discretionary "gray area", but it is much higher, roughly 85-90%. However, these numbers are not hard and fast, hence some candidates have been promoted with a supporting percentage lower than the standard and some have ended in "No consensus" with more than 75% in favor of promotion. This is, of course, because promotion is not a vote count, but rather, the words behind the numbers are of greater importance.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A. As a new bureaucrat, I would avoid closing these contentious RFAs (or RFBs, as the case may be), as I am conservative and would not jump into a new situation with both feet. However, once I settled in, and was closing such an RFX, I would take my time, carefully weighing the situation gauging whether an consensus exists to promote. In the past, I would have been in favor of a "crat chat", but having had months to think about it (and believe me, I think about Wikipedia during most waking hours), I don't think crat chats would be all that helpful in most situations. If it is that difficult to determine if a consensus exists, then it doesn't exist. Instead I would make my decision carefully and conservatively, preferring to err on the side of caution, and thoroughly explain my thought process when closing said contentious nomination. However, if a crat chat was initiated by another bureaucrat, I would participate in the discussion.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A. I believe I have, indeed, demonstrated these traits during my time here on Wikipedia. I have demonstrated fairness and knowledge of policy while resolving minor disputes between editors. I also have to ability to engage others, exemplified by the WikiProject I started, Highly Active Users; forming it required communication and collaboration. I also respond to messages left on my talk page both quickly and civily, as I believe excellent communication skills are paramount to administrators and bureaucrats.

4. Do you have the time and do you have the desire to visit WP:RFA, WP:B/RFA, and/or WP:CHU on a regular basis to attend to those requests?

A. I check WP:RFA (and WT:RFA) and WP:CHU many times daily, and have been doing so for some time now. I will be able to attend to each consistently in order to fulfill requests and prevent backlogs from forming. However, when it comes to flagging bots, I must admit that I do not have experience there, and therefore, would not jump in on that blindly, but I would be available to help out if needed.

Optional question from Master&Expert:

5. From your answer to question 2, you say that 'crat chats are unnecessary if it is overall too difficult to determine a consensus, however there will be times when 'crats will have differing viewpoints on a consensus regarding an RfA/B. Say, for instance, in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Danny, the bureaucrats opened a bureaucrat chat due to difficulty determining whether or not there is consensus to promote, and came to the conclusion that, while there were many opposers, there was a consensus that Danny was trusted - hence, he was promoted, with 69% support. Do you believe that, were you in the position of the closing 'crat for that RfA (or any RfA of that level of contentiousness), you would have simply closed it as no consensus? Why or why not? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me take my time answering, I just wanted to post here so you'd know that I did see the question and let me also mention that I never said crat chats are unnecessary and that in such an RFA, I wouldn't simply do anything because I don't think anything should've been done simply in closing an RFA like Danny's. I'll pour over it carefully and get back to you on what I would've done. Useight (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my tone was a bit too strong in asking this question, and for that, I apologize. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a lot of reading (and had to take some breaks from reading because there was so much) and I have an answer for you now. A lot could be said about this RFA (and a lot has), so I'll keep this as short as I can. I definitely would have taken part in that bureaucrat chat on the matter and I would have been leaning toward promotion. Why? It was a re-confirmation RFA of sorts and those should probably have a slightly different measuring stick. Danny also voluntarily relinquished the sysop bit without being "under a cloud". These, combined with what appeared to be sockpuppetry and canvassing for opposes leads me to be inclined to promote. As a new bureaucrat, though, I would leave the actual closing of such an RFA to a more experienced bureaucrat and only participate in the 'crat chat until I had time to get my feet wet. I would start by closing the obvious ones and move slowly toward the more contentious ones as I became more comfortable with the new role. Useight (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd optional question from Protonk (talk)

6. Why, in your opinion, are WP:CHU and WP:USURP two different request noticeboards (I know one is a sub-page of another)? More generally, do you feel that the 'crat corners of wikipedia are straightforward enough for new users? This isn't a whine (even though I just noticed the distinction today), rather an attempt to get some insight into how you view the process part of the process. This question is entirely optional, I just ask that you not answer it with the safe, "Everything is perfect" sort of answer. :) Thanks.

For the first part of your question, I believe CHU and USURP are two different pages for a couple of reasons. I believe it is mainly because the process is so different. On CHU, if the name isn't already taken (and assuming no other problems, such as inappropriate usernames), the crat can go ahead and perform the rename. At USURP, however, the requested username has to receive a notice of the proposed usurpation and be given a week to respond. Also, it as to be checked whether the name is usurpable, if it has zero contributions, that that makes it easier, but if the account does have some edits, how do they fall under GFDL? I believe they are also kept on separate pages so they don't get convoluted. Usurpations have to wait a week, while regular renames can be done then. If they were on the same list together, it would be much easier to accidentally skip a rename that was crammed in between two usurpation requests.

The second part of your question is whether the crat areas are straight-forward enough for new users. There are a couple ways to answer this, so I'll go with this: most new users can figure out how to correctly request a username change or usurpation, but some do not make their request correctly. So for a vast majority, that "corner" isn't too difficult. And clicking on "Rename" wouldn't be all that hard for new users to handle, either. But if you're referring to new users closing RFAs, then I'd say no, it is not straight-forward enough for a new user. If it was a straight-up vote count, then yes, most new users could handle it, but since it is not, I have to say no. Correctly closing RFAs requires an in-depth familiarity with the RFA process, how the community runs, and so forth. Useight (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Protonk (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Optional question from Davidwr (talk)

7. Regarding questions 1 and 2, please find one RFA that passed with a !vote percentage of less than 70%, and one !vote that failed with a higher !percentage, and discuss which items in each of the RFAs the closing bureaucrat should focus on when making the decision to pass or fail those particular RFAs. I am not asking if you agree or disagree with what the actual closing 'crat did, only what items you think are important in close RFAs. If there are other items that are common in close RFAs that are not in the two you pick, please discuss those as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I probably can't finish my answer right now, as I have to run off to class very soon (nine more days until graduation!), but I'll get the first part now. I thought I'd select an RFA not oft-mentioned -- that of Krimpet. It was closed as successful in April 2007 at just over 67% support. In these close RFAs, it is very important to look carefully at what was said. Were the supports/opposes just a signature? Were the opposes "User hates Mondays."? Was there any canvassing? Brand new accounts voting? And so forth. Traditionally, an opposer is more obligated to give a reason than a supporter is. In this particular RFA, pretty much everyone who commented gave a solid reason. Useight (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As for an RFA that was unsuccessful with a percentage above 70%, there was Aitias' 2nd, which finished at 71%. Again, you have to look closely at what was said. Interestingly, in this particular RFA, there was not a single "weak oppose" (even though that is a marginal difference). There was also some interesting and potential canvassing in the support section. Useight (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Very optional questions from Davidwr (talk), You may wait until your RFB is over before answering these if you choose.

8. In rough terms, what is the ideal number of active bureaucrats on Wikipedia? 5-10? 10-20? 20-40? 40-80? 80-160? etc. Unless you say some number smaller than we have now, your answer won't affect my !vote but I like to get to know who is in the cabal.

9. Should a bureaucrat term be limited? If so, should he be able to stand for additional RFBs before his term expires or should he be required to "sit out" a few weeks? These answers won't affect my !vote but I like to get to know who is in the cabal.

Optional questions from MBisanz

10. Of the 3,500+ prior RFAs, only eight have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime; of over 100 prior RFBs, only two have ever had a bureaucrat extend the endtime. Which of the below would you have extended and under what circumstances and by what process would you extend an RFA in general?

A. In general, I would only extend an RFA if there was some extraordinarily unusual piece of information that was brought to light near the end of an already tight RFA that was causing a flurry of changes, such as many additional supports, many additional opposes, or many switching from one side to the other. Like you said, it is an extremely rare event. Useight (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jayjg further consensus needed by Cecropia:
• Quadell Jimbo clarification by Cecropia:
• ABCD sockpuppetry by Raul654:
• Minghong further consensus needed by Cecropia:
• Neutrality 3 further consensus needed by Pakaran:
• Uncle G further consensus needed by Cecropia: Not Extend
• Weyes2 irregularities by Cecropia:
• HolyRomanEmperor3 compromised account by Linuxbeak:
• Diez2 further consensus needed by Cecropia:
• Cla68 sockpuppetry/proxying by Taxman:
• Benjah-bmm27 canvassing by WJBscribe:

• Grunt further consensus needed by Cecropia:
• Ral315 canvassing by Raul654:

11. Francs2000, Optim, Eloquence, Danny, and Ugen64 were decratted at their own requests between 2004 and 2007. Of them all, the only controversial decrattings could be considered Ugen64 who resigned after a dispute over the promotion % for RFBs and Francs2000 who resigned after a dispute over tallying RFA results. Danny's remains the unusual case of him resigning both crat and sysop rights and later being re-RFA'd, all in connection with his ceasing employment at the Wikimedia Foundation. Which of these users would you re-crat if they asked at WP:BN and which would you require to re-run RfB?

A.

• Francs2000:
• Optim:
• Eloquence:
• Ugen64:
• Danny:

General comments

• See Useight's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool. For the edit count, see the talk page.

• Links for Useight: Useight (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks • rights • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil.

Discussion

• I would like to clarify my position on admin bots, as that seems to be a point of major interest. Simply put, no, I do not like them. This is because they can't make discretionary calls in the event of an exception to the rule, they just follow their code. However, I can clearly see the community consensus to have some, so I roll with it. I'd say it's like me and scrambled eggs. I don't like scrambled eggs, but I once had a roommate who made some for everyone for breakfast, so I ate them. In the case with admin bots, I don't fear them or wish to change the communities desire to have them, I just happen to be in the minority. In an area that I don't even work. Just as an admin, I do not deal with images or ANI because they are areas that I am not fond of, I would not be working in the bot-flagging area of bureaucratship. Heck, if the community came up and said, "You can only be a bureaucrat if you join Bureaucrats Open for Recall and Admins Open for Recall and agree to drop both positions if you ever show your face at WP:BRFA", then I would accept being completely barred from there, a place I don't want to work anyway, in order to help out in the two areas in which I do want to work: RFA and renames. Useight (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Discretion in RFAs: In theory, 'crats have complete discretion over RFAs, just as admins have complete discretion over AFDs. In practice, there's a "discretionary range" - some day 70-80%, I'm not sure what it actually is, in which the closing 'crat has to make a hard decision. Above or below this line and the only reasons to not approve is if the !vote was padded with meatpuppets or !vote-vandals, or if new evidence appeared late that would clearly have affected the outcome had it been known at the start, such as an on-wiki temper tantrum or off-wiki activities that would affect his ability to admin, such as an arrest for murder or something, late in the discussion. The further away you are from that range, the more explaining the crat has to do. It's easy for a crat to, say, approve someone 69-31 if the 31 were obviously "becausewedontlikeyou" and the 69 were very solid reasons to support. However, if it's 31 strong support vs. 69 "becausewedontlikeyou's" and the bit is granted, the bureaucrat will be rightly ridiculed. Likewise, 81 wishy-washy "youaresocooliamyourfriendwillyoubemine" !supports with 19 strong, well-written, non-redundant opposes may nix a nomination, but if you nix a 95-wishy-washy-to-5-solid-oppose people will question your judgment. However, a 99-1 with the sole late oppose being a link to a very recent on-wiki tirade, and I can see the closing 'crat at a minimum extending the discussion if not failing it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have to attend several hours worth of classes right now, so I will be unavailable for a few hours. I am halfway through answering Q7 (and have seen Q8-Q11), and I apologize for not having the opportunity to answer them yet. When I return from class, they will be first priority. Thanks. Useight (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You have your priorities in the right place. That's a good sign. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Oh, sure… (although I wish you'd keep talk threads together) – iridescent 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Yes, seen you around lots, been impressed. Good luck GTD 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Support After checking track has been around since Dec 2006 and track as an admin is good .Do not see any concerns.I do feel the user has enough experience now and see the concerns raised in the previous RFB have been overcame.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Support. Very clearly, you have taken to heart the constructive criticism from RFB1 as just that, constructive, and it's been my pleasure to watch you mature and grow as a far and competent admin. I was the very first editor in your oppose column first time around. This time around, I am glad to be amongst your earliest supporters! Best of luck, Keeper ǀ 76 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Experienced, fair and level headed. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
6. While I certainly disagree with some of his opinions regarding adminship criteria, he is experienced in bureaucrat-related areas, will likely figure out the trick of the trade regarding bots with ease, and has demonstrated persistently sound judgement. From the answers to the 'crat questions, he appears to have a good grasp of consensus. A quick glance at his talk page shows that he is civil and articulate, which is an important trait in a bureaucrat, who is expected to be able to effectively clarify decisions they make if need be. It will be to the benefit of Wikipedia to give Useight bureaucrat rights. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   His response to my query is nothing short of reassuring twards his judgement as a 'crat, and I stand strongly in the support column. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Hello, I'm Yosemite Sam and I need to see a psychiatrist -- you may not believe this, but I am being harassed by a six-foot-tall, bipedal rabbit with a Brooklyn accent and a penchant for transvestism, and...oh, wrong queue. But while I am here: Support for a real rootin'-tootin' hombre who brings net positive vibes to this ol' project! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support - I always thought the Useight was well on his way to being a crat. He has all the necessary attributes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Hello, I'm here to buy a map for Ecoleetage.. Wrong queue? Well while I'm here I'll Support. Has clue, good judgement and the statement reads quite nicely. Ironholds (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Strong Support:I supported you last time and I have changed my mind since then :) Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 10:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Support. Good editor and admin. Good luck, Malinaccier P. (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
14. I supported Useight last time: I think he is more qualified now, and he is an honest person. Acalamari 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
15. Support per Malinaccier. Nobody's perfect, but Useight is a trustworthy candidate. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Support - Absolutely. — Realist² 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Sure. --Kbdank71 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
18. Yes sir. Great candidate IMHO. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
19. Support Can only see him being an excellent crat. Sam ^Blab 20:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
20. iMatthew 20:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
21. I can already tell this will be a close run, but buena suerte. —Ceranthor 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Why did I oppose you last go round? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
23. Support: I'm really only voting for you because I'm sick of you constantly running for things. :-) In all seriousness, I've worked around you long enough to know that you'll be a benefit to the project. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
24. Support You're either with us, or with the adminbots. Keepscases (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
25. Support Your disquiet about adminbots is perfectly understandable, though I don't necessarily agree with it. RMHED (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Support — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Support – Great candidate. Useight has worked in some bureaucrat-related areas, and I'm sure he'll do fine as a bureaucrat himself. The more bureaucrats the better is what I think is best. No harm in having an extra bureaucrat. The rest of the opposes don't concern me. – RyanCross (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Seeing as we now have many active 'crats and only a trickle of admin candidates I think we need to better understand the reasons the candidate wants this role. The candidate says he is requesting bureaucratship to help others improve the encyclopedia, but then the statement is all about how he's reacted to RFB1 and not at all about what he's going to do to help others improve the encyclopedia. If you think you have some unique way to help then tell us what that is. The statement is all résumé and no agenda. It's not at all what I'm looking for at this point, now that there's virtually no pressure on the current 'crats. It's nothing personal against Useight. There are thousands of good editors on Wikipedia and we shouldn't make all of them bureaucrats just for the asking. --JayHenry (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   Bureaucratship doesn't really require much of an agenda, as there aren't any more than three jobs available - RfA closure, bot approval, and username changes/usurptions. These are all beneficial to the Wikipedia community with regards to helping other users, as we need administrators, bots, and appropriate usernames. Also, while I agree that there is no shortage of bureaucrats as of late, it doesn't hurt to have another hand on deck should one or more of them burn out at some point. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   I'm aware of what bureaucrats do. Here's a bit more of my thinking: We have dozens of backlogs that need worked on (but they don't come with fancy titles)--so I'm highly reluctant to support candidates who "just want to help", but want to help in 1) an area that doesn't need help but 2) does come with a fancy title. If you just want to help because we need helpful tasks done then there's lots of places to go do it, and it won't matter if you have a fancy title. If you want the fancy title for an area that doesn't need help, you're going to have to give me a real clear reason why. But at any rate, even if the bureaucrats were drowning in tasks at the moment, I'd be reluctant to support a bureaucrat who's opposed to a transparent adminbot process for, what I consider, fairly dubious reasoning. --JayHenry (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

2. I'm opposing for several reasons, primarily their editor coaching page. Looking at his coaching pages for LAAFan, Voyaging and Realist2, they're nothing but a beard for the old "admin coaching" pages, along with the box-ticking claptrap that comes with their territory. Each page starts off with Useight asking his "student" some stock questions ("When should 'cool-down blocks' be used? What action do you take [when] a user threatens to sue Wikipedia?"), then making a big list of what it takes to become a "well-rounded editor"; this includes such nonsense as critiquing others at WP:ER, clerking at WP:CHU, using automated editing scripts, perusing the off-wiki account creation tool, meditating on their philosophy towards Wikipedia, etc. Here, he even goes as far as to say that their mentee will perform poorly in their forthcoming RFA if they don't start voting in ones themselves. On LAAFan's mentoring page, he suggests that they find one area in which the mentee can "make a footprint"; viewed through the lens of the conversation at the top of that page, it becomes obvious that this is solely to build a platform to run an RFA on. (The context was that the mentee had failed a previous RFA because they ran on a platform of deleting things without adequate participation in the relevant process, and was looking for a new flag to fly on their second go.) One cannot teach common sense, and it is dangerous to instruct editors that the way to become an admin is to check off a few boxes and participate in a little career mandarinism; one that advocates such mindless leveling up is unfit for the b'crat position. Ostensibly, this focus on "all résumé" as JayHenry puts is available on this RFB in spades. I'll refrain from boring you with my philosophies about adminship though.

   Additionally, Useight is advancing a view that the community has never historically supported: automatic passing of all RFAs that finish above 75%, and moving the discretionary zone to 70-75%. 80% has traditionally been the minimum requirement for passing, with allowances being made for bureaucrat discretion for candidacies finishing with 75-80% support.

   Lastly, I found Useight's commentary in the Cydebot BRFA and FA protection bot BRFA to be completely devoid of reason: opposing a policy that was carefully brokered with input from over 100 editors, solely with appeals to emotion and fear-mongering about "SkyNet style incidents." Partisans must not be judges, and since we can neither unbundle the bot-promotion tool from Useight nor rely on a campaign promise that he will avoid WP:BRFA unless help is needed, I see no way a reasonable person can put faith in their judgment there. east718 // talk // email // 06:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   I have to say something about my participation at those two BRFAs. My main point at each can be found at Cydebot 4 and FA Template Protection Bot. In both, I do not believe I was "completely devoid of reason" or "solely [appealing] to emotion and fear-mongering." My point was that bots cannot make judgement calls. I never proclaimed that there would be SkyNet problem. I may not always agree with the consensus, but I always conform to it. Also, I never advocated promoting all RFAs that finished above 75%. Here I proposed closing one at No Consensus that ended at 78%. Useight (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   You said right in Q1 70-75% is the discretionary zone (this implies that anything above is an automatic pass). And your gripe with the template protection robot was that bots "don't have the ability to make judgment calls," despite acknowledging there "aren't really any calls" for this specific bot to make. I'm afraid I fail to see the sense in your concerns. As an admin - I have noticed that you are quite competent and act with equanimity, but as a b'crat - I'm sorry, but your view on the numbers disqualifies you. east718 // talk // email // 07:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   I also said in the same paragraph, "However, these numbers are not hard and fast, hence some candidates have been promoted with a supporting percentage lower than the standard and some have ended in "No consensus" with more than 75% in favor of promotion." I never imply anything and nothing should be inferred or extrapolated from what I say; I'm always quite frank and say what I mean. Useight (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   I always thought 75% was the boundary, and bcrats had leeway from 70-75%, some even going into the 60s. Where does the idea that it's 80% come from? I've never seen that. – How do you turn this on (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

   The lowest recent RFAs to pass were around the 67%-70% mark (RFA/^demon 3 at 63% was a special case.) Majorly hasn't tallied the failed RFAs, but DHMO5 is one I can think of that looked likely to close as a "no consensus" at 80-ish percent. – iridescent 15:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose per absolute opposition to bot accounts with the sysop flag. While bots don't have the judgement to be admins, there are tasks requiring the sysop flag which don't require judgement that can and should be automated. I don't trust the judgement of someone who denies that. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Weak oppose. Candidate has little experience with bots, but strong oppinions in this area. He also has the wrong experience with people — promoting mandarinism. He thinks that reconfirmation RfA standards should be different than those for the hoi polloi. Pcap ping 10:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose - After thinking it over time and time again, I am opposing per my neutral. Xclamation point 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 4. There are two things that bother me here: a) Useight made four posts to the page but three of those contained nothing more than "I'm aware of <good reason 1> and <good reason 2> and <good reason 3>, but I just don't like it" (emphasis mine, paraphrased from [1]) - a bureaucrat justifying a decision in this way is not good; and b) the one shred of proper reasoning he did give was deeply flawed to the point where I cannot trust his judgement. Sorry. – Steel 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC) (Probably unnecessary disclaimer: I was in favour of this bot getting the sysop bit)
7. Per Steel, and the apparent "fear" of adminbots. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Per east, the irrational fear of adminbots is pretty troubling and not really compatible with the goal to "help others improve the encyclopedia." Mr.Z-man 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Irrational fear of adminbots, and per east. RockManQ^{Review me} 23:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Adminbots had community consensus and the approved ones by BAG work well. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose - "Actually, I am not a big fan of ClueBot or any other reverting bots, they often take away my opportunity to build up my edit count." Also, We need bureaucrats who understand community consensus and make decisions with sound reasoning and judgement, not bureaucrats that oppose adminbots because they don't like them. As Cyde said in the BRFA; "this makes just about as much sense as opposing all RfAs because you don't think Wikipedia ought to have administrators". ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Oppose - Your fear of adminbots doesn't have me worried, oh no, but what it means overall does. East and Steel also raise some valid concerns. — neuro^(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral moving to oppose - I'm on the fence here. I would like to support, but I can't really, per WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot 4 and WP:Bots/Requests for approval/FA Template Protection Bot. Now, this may sound biased coming from a member of the bot community, but being a crat involves dealing with bot flaggings. I don't think that Useight won't refuse to flag a bot against consensus, but I would rather not have someone who is against current policy be involved with the process. Xclamation point 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If I may, Useight state above (Q4) that he is inexperienced with bots and likely won't work there. FWIW. Keeper ǀ 76 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Neutral -- but will change to support on December 6, 2008, after one full year of service. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Please see these new standards. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Neutral This user is a fantastic admin, but with the 'crat situation as it is, I'd like to see more getting involved in bot work. The candidate expresses little wish to work there, but it's one place where more bureaucrats are needed. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Neutral Good user, I took a very deep look last RfB, but his views on adminbots trouble me.--Maxim_(talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Related pages

• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship - Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges, as well as a summary of rejected proposals for de-adminship processes and a list of past cases of de-adminship.