Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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.

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.

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 account on Wikipedia. However, editing the RfA page is limited to extended confirmed users, so editors without an extended confirmed account may have their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who has the right. This is due to the community deeming that editors without the requisite experience (500 edits and 30 days of experience) are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship.^[1] 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, but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.

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, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.^[2] 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".^[3] 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.

Firefangledfeathers

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (127/4/1); Scheduled to end 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nomination

Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) – Firefangledfeathers is one of my favorite editors and someone I'm very proud to nominate for adminship. FFF is a knowledgeable and patient editor with quality experience in several fields, including closing discussions, dealing with copyright violations, patrolling new pages and recent changes, and providing third opinions. With close to 50% of his edits to mainspace, FFF is also a competent content creator, with four Did You Knows, one of which is a Good Article (Rosalie Edge), plus three Featured Article save awards with Natalie Clifford Barney, H.D., and Heian Palace. Finally, despite editing around several contentious topics, FFF displays a calm demeanour, but is still able to effectively state his points and is well respected, even with those who may disagree with him. With a deft and keen eye, I believe FFF is someone the admin corps needs moving forwards and will be an excellent admin. * Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination by Vanamonde

I have had my eye on Firefangledfeathers as a candidate for adminship for quite some time now. FFF has the skills and enthusiasm to write content (see his contributions at FAR, in particular) and the ability to do thankless maintenance work well. He has shown he can do content work in difficult areas while remaining calm and respectful toward other editors. Most critically he has the rare ability, essential to a good administrator, to be firm in his convictions while being willing to change his mind. He will make an excellent mop-wielder, and I hope you will join me in supporting him. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination by Doug Weller

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to endorse Firefangledfeathers. As my co-nominators have said, he is a good content editor with wide experience ranging from simple maintenance (ie the boring stuff) to his work with featured articles. He has shown his ability to handle conflict, one of the most important qualities we need in an Administrator. All in all I have always found him to be a solid editor and I believe will make a solid Administrator.

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Many thanks to my nominators for their confidence, compliments, and time. I am honored to accept, and I thank the community in advance for its consideration. I have never edited for pay, and I have one alt account, User:Waterwangledweathers. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I love being an editor, and one of the things I enjoy the most is being helpful to other members of the editing community. Some editors and admins I have great respect for (including my nominators) prompted me to consider adminship. If the community will have me, I hope to be the type of admin that supports and encourages content creators, for example by helping to keep the backlog low on request for page protection.

I have experience as a new page patroller, and I could use the tools for things like actioning copyright violation revision deletion requests. My time at WP:ERRORS has been enjoyable, and I can help the admins already there by resolving items on their off hours.

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

A: My most focused content creation and revision work has led to three new DYK articles (The Sweet Flypaper of Life, Joseph Ranger (seaman), and Caesar Tarrant), one article improved to GA+DYK (Rosalie Edge), and—with the help of some fantastic collaborators—three Featured Article saves (Natalie Clifford Barney, H.D., and Heian Palace). I've also worked as a DYK, GA, and FAR reviewer to keep those processes running. I am proud too of my behind the scenes work as a copy-editor, third opinion provider, new page patroller, and discussion closer.

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: I have edited in a few contentious topic areas, and I find even the non-contentious ones can generate editing conflicts between good-faith editors. When I'm involved, I do try my best to reach a compromise where doing so will still lead to an article improvement. Weirdly, knowing how bad some articles out there are, including ones that are important to me, helps me worry less about editing conflicts that only come out about 51% in my favor. There are times where compromise is unwise, and I've had my fair share of conflict with vandals and LTAs. I have greatly appreciated swift admin responses in those situations, and I hope to pay the favor forward.

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 Folly Mox

4. Since you're here, per your userpage do you have any ideas on how to clarify WP:ONUS?

A: FM is referring to a section on my userpage that discusses how interpretations of WP:ONUS (part of the verifiability policy) and WP:BRD (an essay on best editing practices) can lead to or exacerbate edit wars. Briefly, ONUS leads to a bias toward excluding content, while BRD (also the policy WP:NOCON) pushes a bias toward the status quo ante, meaning it can favor inclusion of disputed content. Other editors have worked toward a better harmony between our policies, guidelines, and essays in this area a few times over the past few years (e.g. a 2020 RfC and 1, 2, 3 discussions from last year). Change in this area is hard, in part, because experienced editors have faced both

• the difficulty in removing obviously poor content from articles being stonewalled and
• the challenge of having to defend long-standing, collaboratively-developed, quality content from someone armed mostly with just the policy citation.

Depending on which you've experienced the most, or the most recently, you might have drastically differing views on the best path forward. I don't have a preference, except that some more meeting-in-the-middle might lead to less strident edit warring. I could envision something like a footnote to ONUS that cautions against edit-warring and encourages a review of how much time and how many edits have passed since content was added before trying to force removal, especially if the issue isn't pressing for BLP reasons. That said, I do not hope to eliminate all possible contradictions in our policies/guidelines/essays, and good editors know that the best move from either side of the debate is to stop reverting and start discussing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

5. Why did you start editing Wikipedia, and why have you stayed? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A: I have been more than anything else a Wikipedia reader, and most of my early editing experience was small fixes to articles I was reading anyway. As someone who likes to know a little about a lot, I was drawn to gnomish work across a range of articles. Editathons and other events have been a major part of my increased participation here: The Sweet Flypaper of Life and the improvements to Rosalie Edge both came out of events. I am grateful to all the coordinators and project leaders. I have some more overarching beliefs about service and public knowledge that keep me aligned with the work we're doing here, but I feel the most immersion and satisfaction when I'm plugging away at an article or topic with a few other editors, sending the occasional "thank". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Lourdes

6. Thank you for applying fff. I wanted to request your response to the first oppose vote. If you were an admin, and if you were to see a complaint against an editor such as what is listed in the first oppose vote. would you respond in the same way as you did? I am really interested in knowing whether your response will be the same or will it change? Thank you for taking the time to review this query.

A: If the situation were exactly the same, I would not act in an admin capacity; FormalDude and I have worked extensively and positively together, and we have a pleasant off-wiki digital friendship. I would be too WP:INVOLVED to mop that area.

Balancing the benefit of experienced and active editors against the harm of their incivility is challenging for our admin corps as a whole. We also shouldn't expect our volunteers to bear harassment and threats with unerring equanimity. I think one of the best approaches is to seek input on the best action/warning/sanction from other admins and editors. Tamzin's close was reasonable, and I hope to follow her example whenever I'm the right person at the right time to be a closer. I aim to bring compassion to such situations, which is sometimes best expressed with firm boundary-setting.

I am likely to continue contacting editors I respect privately to caution against continued incivility. I've been feeling more motivated to do so since Barkeep49 published their excellent essay "Friends don't let friends get sanctioned". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Chess

7. Looking at your edit history [1], you seem to focus on the American Politics topic area, Gender and sexuality, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Defining said areas as per ArbCom, do you consider yourself to be WP:INVOLVED in those topic areas?

A: I would not consider myself INVOLVED in those broad topic areas as a whole, though there are many individual articles and narrow topics (like "anything about J.K. Rowling") where I would not dream of acting as an admin. There are editors in the broad topic areas you mention with whom I've had both disputes (mostly productive ones) and exceedingly positive interactions; I would not be the right person to use the tools around them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Optional question from Andrew D.

8. Your user page explains that your username "comes from Of Mere Being, a poem by Wallace Stevens". That's fine but I'm not quite understanding the poem. Why is it special to you, please?

A:

Optional questions from NYC Guru

9. Back in the day, way before I seriously edited vandalism was usually met with a 24 hour block. Today it's usually met with an indef. Under what conditions would you block a vandal indef or issue a long term rangeblock to a mobile IP network?

A:

10. Taking a look at the current unblock requests would you be willing to unblock any of them?

A:

Optional question from MJL

11. Upon reflection of your level involvement with regards to Eliot Page due to this discussion, would you still make these closes? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm withdrawing this question. It's not particularly helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A:

Optional question from StonyBrook

12. Your first edit here was on February 1, 2009, and since then you have racked up an impressive roster of useful contributions. According to your edit count page, you have also gone through almost 10 years worth of edit-free months (117 of them to be exact) since that date, including 3 long stretches of consecutive months (31, 12 and 14 respectively) with no editing at all done to this site. For an editor being considered for adminship, do you anticipate there being other long spates of inactivity such as these in the future?

A:

Discussion

• Links for Firefangledfeathers: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Firefangledfeathers 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

1. Support DanCherek (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. As nom Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Support. Very glad to see this; best of luck! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
4. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 22:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
5. Frostly (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
6. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
8. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
9. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
10. Support Noah^Talk 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
11. Support Tails Wx 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
12. Stephen 23:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
13. Support Andre🚐 23:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
14. Support: Net positive, has a clue, so sure, why not? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
15. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
16. Support I personally see plenty of good things and no bad things when assessing whether they should be an admin. I have no reason to oppose. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17. Support The person who loves reading (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
18. Support – a superb editor who I'm confident will be a superb administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
19. Support. Looks like a pleasant individual who has both content creation and NPP experience. No concerns. Best of luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20. Support. One of my favorite editors to work with, they will make a stellar admin. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
21. Support A quick scan of the talk page indicates someone with knowledge of how the encyclopedia works, as well as the kind of calm and kindness that I look for in an admin when dealing with less experienced editors. Joyous! Noise! 23:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
22. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
23. Support. Upon review, this editor's most-edited Talk pages seem to be in high drama areas, where their contributions seem consistently calm, level-headed, and based in policy. Well rounded in experience including front of house and back of house business. I trust the noms, and it looks like FFF could use the tools. Easy support from me. Folly Mox (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
24. Support. Heck yeah! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
25. Support. Fantastic editor, one of my favourite people to interact with on site. Always kind and helpful, exactly what we need in admins. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
26. Support. This editor has good judgement and keeps an even keel. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
27. Support. Excellent nomination. I have seen just enough of FFF to feel sure he will be a great, all-round administrator. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
28. Support excellent candidate. HouseBlaster^talk 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
29. Support Splendid choice. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
30. Support. I don't recall any negative interactions with them, though I have vague positive feelings. all seems good. SWinxy (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
31. Support have often run into them (w/o directly interacting, as far as I recall) and been impressed by their drama-free cluefulness. Qualities that should serve them well as an admin. Abecedare (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
32. Support Excellent user. Always found their contributions above-par. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
33. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
34. SUPPORT use of all caps entirely intentional jengod (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
35. Support I've seen them around, and like what I've seen. Miniapolis 02:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
36. Volunteering? Sure, yeah. Get to work. Courcelles (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
37. Support Another great editor who I thought was already an admin. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 02:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Support per behaviour here. [2] [3] I found these pages by looking through the context of an oppose vote, but seeing Firefangledfeathers' contributions on just those two archive pages demonstrates a nominee that immediately recognized a POV-pusher months before they were actually indeffed for such as well as an understanding of when to try to de-escalate situations before they turned into an unnecessary ban. They do so by asking probing questions that helped clarified issues editors were having in a way that resolved the dispute. Ironically, we don't have enough admins willing to get into arguments at WP:ANI, and many users that do either end up trying to de-escalate when action is needed or escalate when action is not.

    Looking through Firefangledfeathers' contributions to WP:ANI, I see an editor who is willing to engage with tough conduct issues and generally judges those situations accurately, i.e. is willing to be confrontational and will be so when required. I hope to see them at the WP:DRAMABOARD in the future even though an interest in such is not explicitly mentioned in the nomination.Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    I retracted this support due to a lack of understanding of WP:INVOLVED from the nominee as demonstrated in A7 and multiple INVOLVED non-admin closures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    To clarify, the nominee directly telling another editor to drop the stick is exactly what I want to see more admins doing. I think the nominee should continue telling other editors to drop various sticks if successful. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

38. Support. Another "I thought they already were" !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
39. Support - Glad to support. No reservations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
40. Support. Level-headed, will be a good admin. ULPS (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
41. Oppose already an admin. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
42. I've only seen this editor add value. May your contributions with the admin tools be as valuable as those you've made without. czar 04:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
43. Support. I honestly thought he was already an admin. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
44. Support. The candidate has commendable content creation experience, and works in a suitably broad range of areas effectively (i.e., 3O, discussion closing, and RFPP). They do frequent the dramaboards, with ANI being by far their most edited projectspace page, however, upon a cursory glance their contributions are reasonable and civil, so there's no problem with that IMO. Their NPP and deletion participation is also solid, despite their CSD-related experience being quite light per the CSD log and their PageTriage edits. However, the candidate is relatively active in AfDs, with participation there being solidly policy-based. Overall I definitely think Firefangledfeathers would be a net-positive. VickKiang (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
45. Support - careful, judicious temperament we need in admins --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
46. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
47. Support - I knew they weren't an admin, but think they should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
48. Support I have reminded myself of the events referred to in the single oppose and disagree with the interpretation presented; i recognise the candidate's name from a whole lot of places; i believe that the admin corps will benefit from the addition...in short, i can find no reason not to support other than that this is a younger account than mine ~ these darn kids are taking over the place! Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
49. Support, has clue and tact. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
50. Support Volten001 ^☎ 07:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
51. Per my criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
52. — Trey Maturin™ 08:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
53. Support I’ve always thought of this user as an admin without tools. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
54. Support Clearly a good candidate. --Bduke (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
55. FFF hasmy full support --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
56. Support – no problems here. Graham87 09:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
57. Support - solid, intelligent, great temperament. DFlhb (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
58. Support - content experience and good reputation. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
59. Spangle. I've always seen FFF be a rational, positive force in discussions, great qualities in an administrator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
60. Support does exactly what an admin should do in the situation cited by the oppose vote. Lightoil (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
61. Support No issues here. Level headed, has a clue and would be able to be trusted with the tools with no worries. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
62. Support Good luck! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
63. I wouldn't usually associate feathers with fire, something so soft juxtaposed with something so destructive. Or maybe duality is the point — a delicate passion perhaps. In any event, they have my Support.  Spintendo  11:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    🔥🪽 Phoenix ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

64. Support No concerns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
65. Support Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
66. Support as nom. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
67. Support. Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
68. Support. Thought they already were an admin, please fix. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
69. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
70. Support RFPP could use some more eyes on it, I see no reason not to support, especially not with great administrators supporting this adminship. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
71. Support - I have no doubt that Wikipedia would benefit from Firefangledfeathers being an admin. - Aoidh (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
72. Support. Glad to see FFF here. AviationFreak💬 13:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
73. Support No issues from my side. FFF will make a great admin. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
74. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
75. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
76. Support. The first oppose gave me a concrete example of a conflict they were peripherally involved in and how Firefangledfeathers handles such situations. Their comment was reasonable. I can empathize with Homeostasis07 who felt dismissed, but did not have the same interpretation of that interaction. Thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
77. Support Beccaynr (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
78. Support Per nom. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
79. Support in smallcaps as a counterpoint to Jengod's allcaps. Cabayi (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
80. Support - No issues that I can see. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
81. Support - There isn't any problem with this man, he is a good candidate. Sahas P. (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
82. Support – I've seen this user a lot and interacted a few times with them, and everything I've seen tells me that they will be a great admin. Level-headed, empathic (this one is important!), experienced, hard-working, precisely the type of editor we need to wield the mop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
83. Support we’ve had fairly limited interactions and I’ve thought about the points raised by Oppose !voters but I don’t see a reason to deny admin tools. Mccapra (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
84. Support I have seen you around. You will do great with the mop. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
85. Support: I worked on Natalie Clifford Barney for the FAR with FFF, who did much more work on the article than I did, and my impression of them then was only positive. I'm not seeing anything to worry about in either of the opposes – indeed, reading the full Time and New York Times sources cited by Oppose #2 only makes me think that the edit that they take issue with was absolutely correct. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
86. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
87. support - solid all around everytime Ive seen them. nableezy - 20:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
88. Support They demonstrate a generally high set of competencies. But I also want to note that whether or not they have filled in certain weaknesses as "checking boxes" as part of their preparation for RfA...is completely irrelevant. Either they didn't do it for that reason (in which case it's moot), or they did - in which case we have a candidate capable of identifying weaknesses in their experience and skillset that the community cares about and remedying it. Clearly we should only have admins who luck into their skillsets /s Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
89. Support Ertrinken 20:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
90. Support. I expect this candidate will use the mop responsibly. BD2412 T 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
91. Support My experience of FFF is that they are a solid, stable editor with a good grasp of policy. I think giving them the extra buttons will be a net benefit to the community and the 'pedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
92. Support No concerns. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
93. Support. Seems like a good and sensible editor, and a good candidate. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
94. Support. Don't see why not. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
95. Support when I've come across this editor they've been helpful. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
96. Support I've only had and seen good interactions with FFF. ~ HAL333 00:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
97. Support - Thought they were already an admin. Recall from memory he was one of the first people I interacted with when I first started editing properly. I had made some errors and got that newbie bombardment of TP posts from ticked off editors. FFF was very calm and explained things nicely. This is the kind of person we need as an admin, helpful and patient. Seems skilled also. Good candidate for the tools. As far as I am concerned, anyone who has featured articles and demonstrates a patient temperament shows beyond doubt they have a clue and aren't a jerk. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
98. Support – meets my criteria. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
99. Support Leijurv (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
100. Support. Looks good to me—has CLUE. Thanks for standing. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
101. Support Solid candidate. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
102. Support. I've found Firefangledfeathers to be a boon in contentious discussions, where they're consistently seeking npov and always willing to listen to other points of view and compromise. On top of that they have solid experience in content creation, and were even kind enough to give me a hand with some reference formatting for one of my GAs. Lastly, I've seen them mediating in disputes between editors, helping to cool down situations, rather than raising the temperature. Excellent candidate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
103. Support I've seen them around, and had a positive impression, figured they might make good admin material. The nominations and much of the above, plus additional investigation into candidate's contributions confirmed my suspicions were correct. Yes, we need more conservative admins, but we need more liberal admins, more centrist admins, and more (English-speaking) Martian admins. User has demonstrated CLUE, temperament, and tenure, so this candidacy should be a clear win for all of us. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
104. Support per the noms. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
105. Support Cherrell410 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
106. Support I have only positive associations with times I've seen Fire's name in various pages in which we both edited. Star Mississippi 02:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
107. Oppose - got a clue, has a bunch of work both maintaining and building the encyclopedia, clearly unfit for adminship ^[sarcasm]. — Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 03:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
108. Support clearly a fit for adminship. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 03:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
109. Support I haven't had a lot of interaction with them but I see they've been active and do good work. Also there are many people here who's opinion I respect who have great things to say. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
110. Support. To be honest, I thought that they were one already.. As cliché as that is to say... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
111. Support after a brief look at some contributions and what is written here. {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
112. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
113. Soft Support --- While I don't agree with what FFF did earlier ref the oppose 1 incident, I appreciate that they've considered the close that Tamzin took as reasonable (que 6). I have blocked close friends and highly respected editors and have had to face friendly fire for that. But I have attempted to privately contact such friends who may have crossed the line, and I have occasionally reverted their attacks without checking with them. FFF's understanding of this method of collaboration is also promising. I was reading a discussion between an Arb and an administrator yesterday on one case, where the administrator tells the Arb that the term "incivility is prohibited on Wikipedia" (included by drafting Arbs on that case) seems to be off, as incivility is not prohibited on Wikipedia. The Arb linked up to the Arbitration principles page, where the term "prohibited" is written multiple times, and the tenor is very clear there, that incivility, tendentious discussions, and of course attacks, are prohibited (not "strongly discouraged", or "not acceptable", but "prohibited"). We need our editors and prospective administrators such as FFF to somehow undergo a textual cultural change that using intemperate language on other editors leaves significant toxic experiences in individuals, and such individuals would tend over time to not want to collaborate with others anymore, slowly becoming exemplifiers of OWN or just quitting the project. We currently accept incivility to a large extent on this project. The benchmark of what is uncivil has also gone askance to a point that is bemusing. FFF needs to cross that line of bemusement and tow the line of Arb principles, and in fact, I hope there will be a day when the admin corps also does that, and editors follow suit. Irrespective of that, FFF is good to go here. Soft support for them. Lourdes 08:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

     saying that I have blocked close friends is a little concerning. WP:INVOLVED also applies to people taking negative actions against people they like and vice versa. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

114. Support: no temperament issues that I can see. Plenty of content creation, skill and experience. — Bilorv (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
115. Support: I fully completely support you as an adminship, in my thoughts, you did your best on contributions in order to keep you reach a chance to become an administrator one day, to unlock special tools for you to use. |-CrayonOfWorld92(talk) 09:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
116. SupportI interacted with them at H.D., where they did a fine job.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
117. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
118. Support. I've seen FFF in various discussions over time and have consistently found them to be thoughtful and reasonable. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
119. Support – no concerns. – bradv 14:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
120. Support. Definitely will make a great admin. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
121. Support. A really versatile editor, and everything they do seems good to me.—Alalch E. 15:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
122. I don't usually bother to vote in obviously-going-to-pass RfAs recently, but the opposes are sufficiently poor in this one that they merit piling on an additional "Not a jerk, has a clue". --JBL (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
123. Support. I met FFF during the very long (five talk pages) Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. The point of featured article review WP:FAR is to either delist featured content or to bring it back to the featured article criteria - in other words, looking after content. The Rowling FAR is an example of Wikipedia at its best when a large crew of editors worked together collegially. Later, during the Wikipedia:Featured article review/H.D./archive2, where this somewhat jaded content editor was demotivated, FFF's online demeanor, help, attitude, willingness to work hard, were a motivation to get the work done. FFF is a good content contributor and has clue. Happy so see this. Victoria (tk) 20:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
124. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
125. Support no concerns. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
126. Support per Lightburst's evidence that the user has been contributing quality content by way of GA/FA, and has been actively attempting to uphold NPOV in a difficult topic area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
127. Support I see no issues with the candidate’s contributions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose

1. Oppose: I've had exactly one interaction with Firefangledfeathers that I can remember: here. In that discussion, Firefangledfeathers disregarded a multitude of diff'ed examples of another user's tendentious editing, deleting a potential suicide note, WP:SUPERVOTING at AfD and RfC closures, and gross "fuck-face" insults. Telling me instead to "drop it". The discussion was eventually closed with that reported user receiving a warning for "incivility and edit-warring". Firefangledfeathers obviously doesn't have the prerequisite judgement to be an admin. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Answer to question 6 is quite enlightening. Firefangledfeathers would have been wise to originally specify in the ANI I linked above that "FormalDude and I have worked extensively and positively together, and we have a pleasant off-wiki digital friendship". To me, it now seems like a clear-cut case of a pal protecting a pal in the face of egregious incivility. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Discussion moved to the talk page. qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. Oppose The candidate has little content creation and seemed to be checking boxes like a GA recently and a few recent FAs. I am mostly troubled by their judgement: the oppose ivote above strikes me as it relates to my criteria for administrators: I think they are there to protect content and content creators and in this case telling Homeostasis07 to drop it gives aid and comfort to a bully. Also related to the judgement of the candidate; in 2020 I went to Kenosha Wisconsin to take images of the city after the destructive riots there. Here on Wikipedia we had discussion about the title of the article and eventually we called the events Kenosha unrest which I felt was a whitewashing title. But even worse Firefangledfeathers proposed that we tame the title even more by calling it Kenosha protest. Firefangledfeathers also removed the detail stating that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in self-defense. Even the NYT discusses the acquittal in terms of self-defense. Time (magazine) which opens their article with the line Jurors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s polarizing murder trial agreed with the defense that the teenager acted in self-defense. From my view the actions of Firefangledfeathers suggest questionable judgement and POV pushing. Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Preemptively commenting here to ask everyone not to badger this oppose (even though I personally disagree) or start an explosive debate about American politics 🤷🏻‍♂️ the RfA is stressful enough as is. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   The NYTimes was discussing the acquittal in terms of the jury and defense's characterizations, which is not to say that the Times itself was using that characterization. Fff's removal of said characterization, which the adding editor was attempting to make using Wikipedia's voice, was completely appropriate and in-line with WP:NPOV.  Spintendo  19:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   They're definitely checking boxes, that might be why they quit contributing to WP:ANI and completely avoided mentioning it despite their 263 edits there. [4] It's their most edited page on the project and yet it's not mentioned here in their answer to "have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past?" In order to get elected at RfA, it's necessary to play to the crowd, and the crowd wants FAs/GAs. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   That makes sense @Chess:. When I was sanctioned at ANI the candidate was just lurking and did not ivote. I think if you are wanting to be an administrator you need to stick up for content creators, not defend your obviously wrong buddy as the candidate admits to in question 6. I too saw the 263 edits and so went back to see that if they were involved in the 2021 Halloween Purge thread. They were indeed but I think mostly to pop corn and enjoy the show. Lightburst (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. Oppose. Hate to switch my vote, but the nominee not considering themselves involved in any of the three contentious topics mentioned in Q7 is illogical. The nominee seems to believe they are only involved if they have interacted with other editors or have directly edited the page in question. This is incorrect, editors heavily involved in an area don't get to use their admin powers in there. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. I could understand feeling like a few disputes don't count, but the policy only excludes those whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias. Virtually all of their most edited talk pages are in those three CTs.[5] Just in GENSEX, I count 58 edits to Talk:Sex, 50 edits to Talk:J. K. Rowling, 46 to Talk:Kathleen Stock, 36 to Talk:Gender, 27 to Talk:Sex–gender distinction, 26 to Talk:Wi Spa controversy, and many more to dozens of pages in the topic area. A large amount of these edits are comments at RfCs and general disputes over GENSEX. One can also find many comments at WP:AE about GENSEX and the other two topic areas. [6] [7] [8] One might ask why this matters when the nominee is only going to do uncontroversial main page edits or RFPP. Being honest, WP:ANI is this users' most edited page behind their own user talk page. It's hard to believe they're telling the truth in Q3; all signs point to a nominee who is playing the role of a content creator for RfA, then will beeline straight to blocks/AE/etc once they get the bit for life. This is an editor who usually contributes to contentious topics, wants to become an admin, and is telling us directly that they don't feel as if they're involved in a subject area they have hundreds of edits in. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   looking at the nominee's history, they've had problems with WP:INVOLVED non-admin closes in the past. For instance, Firefangledfeathers made multiple edits to the article Peter A. McCullough, saying he spread misinformation and generally reverting editors on whether to describe his views as misinformation.[9] [10] Firefangledfeathers then closed a discussion about whether to describe McCullough's views as misinformation, saying Not worth discussing with people who are not interested in improving content on Wikipedia. [11] [12] When called out on it by a third editor, their response was that it was OK since my closure was unrelated to the merits of the content dispute and said editor could just start a new discussion. [13] I agree with Firefangledfeathers on the underlying content dispute and the reasoning for the close, but they can't do both things at once and they don't seem to understand WP:INVOLVED. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   saying "he spread misinformation" This is misleading, making it seem as though FFF introduced that language. The McCullough page appears to have attracted a huge amount of vandalism and disruptive editing. As far as I can tell, all of FFF's edits to the article were to revert said vandalism/blanking or to make trivial stylistic changes. One doesn't become involved by reverting vandalism. I tend to err on the side of not hatting discussions, so don't agree with doing so at this example, but it's a judgment call that's completely unrelated to WP:INVOLVED. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   It's not misleading. Read the edit summary. [14] Reverted 2 edits by 47.185.179.115 (talk): Reliable sources state this as fact, we are summarizing what the sources say is not an anti-vandalism revert. It's a content dispute reversion that clearly endorses the claim that McCullough is spreading COVID misinformation. Being right in a content dispute doesn't mean the other person is performing vandalism. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   You have identified a moment where FFF strained to assume good faith by providing an explanation where they would've been just as justified using a terse edit summary. But because they treated the now-blocked single-purpose POV pushers/edit warriors/vandals with some patience, it's somehow a WP:INVOLVED gotcha. No. It's a straightforward revert of an obviously bad edit and an uncontroversial application of wikipolicy. It would be absurd to promise not to use their tools in three vast topic areas, as though they wouldn't be able to exercise good judgment in articles about some state comptroller, FDA policy, athlete that happens to be gay, the National Parks budget, an STI, or some tax plan from the 1950s. With any admin it's going to be risky for them to use the tools in an area they edit in heavily, as it makes them a magnet for INVOLVED-related objections. The question is really more about whether FFF has good enough judgment to avoid those instances, rather than whether they'll take an abstinence pledge at RfA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Another example is on Talk:Elliot Page on whether to include his deadname. Firefangledfeathers commented on discussions taking the position that said deadname should be included as Elliot Page was notable under such and project wide discussions therefore require the name. [15] [16] [17] A little less than a year later, Firefangledfeathers closed a bunch of talk page discussions started by people against including the deadname, telling them to go to MOS:DEADNAME. [18] Aside from this being a WP:INVOLVED close, it's not an accurate reading of the policy at the time of closing, which says A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it [19] Going by RFC 2119,[20] the standard for defining the word "should", says it's equivalent to a recommendation and is not a hard requirement to include DEADNAMEs. This view was also expressed at previous RfCs on the talk page (see Newimpartial's reply to Sdkb), [21] which said that MOS:DEADNAME is permissive, rather than obligatory, about deadnames in the lede. This seems like an example of an editor claiming there's a global consensus that doesn't really exist to early close a proposal they personally don't like. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   @Chess: This doesn't seem like Firefangledfeathers was taking any position on the subject of MOS:DEADNAME (just telling an editor where to go to change it). This response would similarly not make them WP:INVOLVED in my opinion. This last diff seems more born out of frustration of dealing with a user who refused to WP:LISTEN that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a global one, but it's definitely blurring the lines for INVOLVEMENT.

   As for their stance regarding the permissiveness of MOS:DEADNAME, I would argue the view most editors have is its seen as a requirement to include a notable deadname rather than simply a recommendation which does not have to always be followed (that's just my understanding though). It's also slightly unfair to invoke Newimpartial's 2020 opinion here because they can't exactly clarify their position any more.

   Not trying to BLUDGEON an oppose, but I did feel the need to correct some of the record here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   @MJL: Apologies for the ping, I didn't follow that ANI thread until the ending. Regardless, the idea that there's a global consensus mandating inclusions of deadnames is and has been disputed, which I think the quote is clear about. You haven't explained why the first diff isn't taking a position: Discussion at this article talk page shouldn't override the status quo centralized consensus is a claim that there's a "centralized consensus". If Firefangledfeathers says that there's a centralized consensus

   to include deadnames, and someone else disagrees that consensus exists at that level, it's WP:INVOLVED

   to close the discussion with Selective use of Page's deadname is warranted per project-wide consensus at MOS:DEADNAME.

   There's no blurred lines when the policy says Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards; editors closing such discussions should not have been involved the discussion itself or related disputes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   @Chess: No worries, thanks for the ping. I'll try to keep this short.
   To be honest, I don't know enough about MOS:DEADNAME to tell you how disputed it is, so I can't respond there.
   The first diff was just meta-discussion about where policy can be changed and really could've happened on any article talk page and wasn't specific to Eliot Page. Chessinnit was advocating never including deadnames across the board regardless of prior notability which is substantively different than current global consensus.
   As for the other diffs, I probably wouldn't have made those closes because of that discussion with Dufaer. Though, I probably wouldn't issue a close-challenge just because I don't think it's close enough to easily call. To settle the issue though (because I do think the candidate has a decent understanding of WP:INVOLVED), I asked this question. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Eh, I've changed my mind about asking the question. I don't consider it helpful here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   The nominee seems to believe they are only involved if they have interacted with other editors or have directly edited the page in question. This is incorrect, editors heavily involved in an area don't get to use their admin powers in there. That seems like an incredibly uncharitable reading of FFF's reply to question seven, given that they specifically name an example of a topic where they believe that they are involved. They clearly accept that it's possible to be involved wrt a particular topic; what they disagree with is that they are involved with respect to the entirety of three incredibly broad topic areas. Looking at their edit history, it's not obvious to me that they should be considered involved wrt e.g. Build Back Better Plan, which is certainly within the scope of US politics broadly construed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   @Caeciliusinhorto-public: They have 45 contributions to talk page discussions about Joe Biden (52 if you count Let's Go Brandon) generally advocating for the exclusion of negative material, and 53 edits to Talk:Donald Trump which advocate for the inclusion of negative material. If you heavily edit pages about Joe Biden, I would say you can't go be an admin on his signature policy. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4. Oppose mostly per the issue identified by Chess above. Not being able to identify when one is involved is concerning, especially for an Admin who might be called upon to act in those areas. Intothatdarkness 14:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral

1. Answers to my questions are pending. Yeah I know you're going to get the broom an mop. NYC Guru (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NYC Guru: I think your question may be difficult to answer as it appears to be based on an incorrect perception that vandalism blocks only recently defaulted to indef. You mention "back in the day" which I assume to be about 4 years ago as your account was created in 2020. As an admin since 2011, I can say with certainty that blocking vandalism-only accounts indefinitely has been routine since I got my bit. The default template for vandalism-only accounts notes the block is indefinite and has done so for well over a decade.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ponyo: Given the huge number of account getting blocked on the suspicion of "socking", and given the huge number of unblock requests that get denied I have tried to pinpoint why all this happens and why so much time goes in to enforcing "one account" policy and why socking happens to begin with. I've come to the conclusion that the sock creators were blocked indef -- without warning -- and assuming that they were legitimately editing for the first time they really had no idea what content was accepted and what wasn't. In the early days, the one-day or one-week blocks were instructive. The editor know he did something wrong but it was more likely to wait out the block then make another account. Now I ask you, you just got blocked indef and requested an unblock and got denied and you can't even respond because your talk page is locked. Give me one reason not the make another account. If we want truly want to make blocks instructive and not punitive then I believe this has to change. NYC Guru (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you are suggesting is a wholesale change in both policy and practice. An administrator is expected to follow current policy and community consensus; your reply above and leading questions suggest that you would like to see a reply from Firefangledfeathers that demonstrates he would go against such policies and consensus as an admin. I won't reply further, but I think you've put the candidate in an bit of a catch-22. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied here NYC Guru (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NYC Guru: Blocking is a preventive measure. To get blocked and have one's talk page access revoked, one needs to be particularly disruptive. In many such cases, the block and TPA revocation are an admin's only available choice. In addition, from my experience, the majority of sockpuppeteers were given multiple warnings before they got blocked. I'm not saying this entire process is perfect; there are some cases where users get indeffed even when mentoring may have been a better option. Could you please provide a more specific example? Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nythar, Of course there are cases where blocking indef is called for. I'm not trying to change anything as well. If consensus calls for something I can't change it. I've been browsing wikipedia since the middle oughts an I back then then general reaction to vandalism was more based on the severity of contributions. Indef was only used against persistent vandalism. NYC Guru (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments

• Since you've been a contributor at DYK, I hope you'll get involved with the administrative side. We need admins who can do final reviews and promote prep sets to the queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
• Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
• 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.