Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3]
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
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.[4] 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".[5] 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:SNOWorWP: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.
Elli (talk·contribs) – Hi everyone. I'm very happy to be back here to nominate someone I think would make a great admin: User:Elli. She's one of the few Wikipedians I've had the honour of meeting in person and I think she'd be a great addition to the admin corps. Elli has technically been a Wikipedian since 2014 but did not become consistently active until 2020. I believe this is more than enough time to learn the ropes of the project – despite how close that date feels sometimes, it was indeed four years ago. Elli has also accomplished something I have not: an FA (1964 Illinois House of Representatives election). She has also created 2 GAs and numerous other articles. My point is that she's clearly here and dedicated to the project. In regards to the more technical side of things, Elli is an experienced page mover and template editor – user rights where it's important for one to be able to follow instructions, not mess things up (or at least fix mistakes when they happen), and require good judgement. I strongly believe that Elli is well-qualified and passes what I look for in an admin with flying colours. I hope others agree. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks for the nomination; I accept! Never edited for money and never will, and my alternative accounts are listed here (permalink). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I enjoy closing discussions and working in technical areas; my capabilities to do both of these would be significantly expanded with adminship. I'd also like to help deal with backlogs in other areas, such as unblock requests, once I'm more experienced and confident as an administrator.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:My featured article is definitely my best writing. I also am proud of my more behind-the-scenes edits; for example, I often help with editing protected templates as a template editor. I like being able to help people do things on the project they can't do on their own, in pursuit of making the editing environment more egalitarian: we should ultimately be equals here, even though some actions need higher levels of permissions than others.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, but not recently. A few years ago, I got into a dispute with an editor that got quite heated (the dispute was over the details of how a particular template should work). After sleeping on it, I realized that having such an attitude would get me nowhere, and that I wasn't recognizing the other person behind the screen. I changed my attitude accordingly, we both backed down from the dispute, and now I consider myself on good terms with that editor (and I'm pretty sure they think similarly).
Nowadays, I generally disengage from disputes after a few comments; if my opinion is likely to gain community consensus, then I don't need to badger people into it, and if it isn't, then arguing just wastes time for no benefit. I'm not perfect, but I've avoided getting dragged into anything particularly messy or stressful.
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limitoftwo 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 Gog the Mild
4. What went well or not so well when you took an article through FAC? What was easy or difficult? What, if anything would you change?
Thanks for the question! FAC was overall a smoother process than I had expected. I was worried that people would be rather strict and nitpicky, but while people gave my article tough and honest feedback, none of it felt unreasonable and the reviewers were quite willing to listen and understand my perspective on how I wanted to present information in the article. My experiences with the GAN and FAC processes (both in nominating and reviewing) inspired me to write this (tangentially related) essay about some challenges in writing good/featured content. I don't have particular changes to suggest for the process at this point, though; I'd like to take another article at FAC first (hopefully soon, though it is a good bit of work). Elli (talk | contribs) 17:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Briefly, could you explain your massive spike in edit count in 2021, and the subsequent drop off?
A: Yeah. I didn't have much going on in my life in 2021 due to the pandemic, so I got quite into Wikipedia then. I started college in 2022 so I've had significantly less time and energy to edit (though I still care a lot about Wikipedia and spend a significant amount of time editing). Also, I've tried to split off some of my semi-automated edits to ElliAWB (note: the name is a bit inaccurate as I use it for other types of semi-automatic edits as well), so that makes the activity on my main account look a bit lower. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hi there, since the last few RfAs have felt like job interviews, I shall ask a normal, easy question done in an interview. Do you have any hobbies outside of Wikipedia?
A: Yeah! In terms of similar projects, I also edit somewhat actively on OpenStreetMap. Outside of that, my primary interests currently are travel and board games. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Are there areas of this encyclopedia you favor over others? (i.e. politics, sports, Science, etc.)
A: I tend to edit about politics, elections, and current events; as a reader I often went to Wikipedia to find out about these topics so I like making sure our coverage on them is accurate, neutral, comprehensive, and up-to-date. However, I don't exclusively edit in those topic areas. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Q8 and Q9 have been deleted as inappropriate, so skipping them in the numbering scheme. Discuss on the talk page if you must. RoySmith(talk) 22:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
10. Every administrator has areas they choose not to work in, and that's perfectly acceptable. Opinions and interests change over time, but as of now, what administrative areas would you choose to not get involved in?
A: Since I'm not an admin yet, and my interests can often vary, there aren't any areas I can confidently say I won't work in. However, AE is an area that requires a lot of experience, and in which I have none, so I don't plan on making admin actions there without prior experience in user conduct administration. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: Hah, yeah, thanks for reminding me about that one. At the time I started editing it seriously, I thought it was in good shape and close to meeting the GA criteria; I nominated it for GA and tried to improve it along those lines. This was a few years ago and before I understood the effort truly necessary to bring an article to GA, especially an article one that isn't the primary author on, and unfortunately the nomination did not succeed. If you're curious about the particular edits I've made, you can check them here; it's mostly removing excessive and unsourced content, adding additional sources, and copyediting. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12. You list your work in technical areas as one of the main reasons for requesting administrative (by extension interface-administrative) rights on the English Wikipedia. Could you give a few examples of your best work in these areas?
A: Sure. Some of the things I've done include modifying {{Cite tweet}} to check for incorrect dates (based on the Tweet ID), creating and maintaining {{US elections imagemap}} to greatly simplify the process of creating imagemaps for those articles, and editingModule:RfD to make it a bit clearer to newer users what is going on. Much of this work was a few years ago, but I've still continued to edit in technical areas, including helping to implement template-protected edit requests. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as an FYI, I don't have immediate plans to request interface administrator, though if I end up editing more in areas where that would be useful, then I would request it. I'd want a bit more experience first, though.
13. What are your thoughts on the applicability of the bold-revert-discuss cycle to the technical areas of Wikipedia?
A:WP:BEBOLD is a good principle for general editing, but needs to be weighed against the far greater importance of maintaining stability in technical areas. For a highly-used template, it's a good idea to ask on talk first if one's edits might be even a bit controversial, as a bold edit being reverted would use a lot of server resources while leaving some pages cached in inconsistent states. It's also important to use a sandbox to test edits, even insignificant ones, before editing the main template. This also applies to modules, and even moreso to parts of the site interface (though I don't yet have experience there). Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14. You have quite an impressive history of contributing to articles. Do you plan to continue editing articles alongside your admin work?
A: Yep! I'll still keep writing and improving articles; it's something I greatly enjoy and don't want to give up. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15. I noticed you are also a prolific contributor to Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata and have ten or more edits on at least 28 other editions of Wikipedia. In your opinion, how important is it for the various Wikimedia projects to work together?
A: Collaboration with Commons and Wikidata can be very beneficial, and I've found great value in contributing to both. Sometimes I wish our communities were closer, as we all have similar goals, just different ways of getting there. I will note that most of my edits on other language Wikipedias are due to my work at Commons (renaming files); I am sadly not proficient in nearly that many languages. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16. Under what conditons would you block a new user indefinitely?
A: It's important to note for this question that indefinite is not infinite, and while an indef sounds harsh, it does not mean that a new user is blocked forever, with no chance of appeal. Accounts with blatantly inappropriate usernames, accounts that are entirely promotional, and vandalism-only accounts, are all acceptable to indefinitely block as new users (though depending on the severity, some of these accounts may receive a few warnings before a block). However, as they are new users, and might not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, a block appeal they make would likely be accepted, provided they understand why their past behavior was problematic and agreed not to repeat it. In borderline cases, I'd definitely warn first and/or leave the account to a more experienced admin to deal with. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17. In an attempt to close a requested move discussion, you realise that a recently closed RfC had introduced new guidelines for the article title in question, but its closure does not sit well with you as it may potentially be in conflict with other established policies or guidelines. What would you do?
A: Good question. Consensus can change, and if participants in the RfC identified the existing consensus but agreed to change it, then that would be fine. Regarding page titles, there's a number of different policies and guidelines for how they should be decided, and these are often weighed against each other. For example, if an RfC established a consensus that page titles for a particular topic area should prioritize consistency over using the common name (or vice versa), then while I might agree or disagree with the specifics, I would abide by that result and use it to help guide my closures of RMs in that topic area. Also, important to note that if I feel my opinions on the subject would unduly bias me, I would leave the closure to someone else. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18. In Question 1, when asked about why you want to be an administrator, you open by saying:"I enjoy closing discussions and working in technical areas; my capabilities to do both of these would be significantly expanded with adminship." What, precisely, will be enhanced for you in which technical areas?
A: Editing fully-protected pages (as some high-risk templates and modules are), as well as doing more complex maintenance tasks (such as merging templates following TfD's) are a few examples. Histmerges and complex pagemoves are other technical things I'd like to work on that adminship either enables or makes easier.
These technical areas aren't the only places where I'd use admin tools; discussion closes and other backlog work are what I'm currently more interested in. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19. Were you shocked, offended, or appalled that someone tried to ask you a question here about one of your userboxes and do you have anything to say about the ones you choose to post on your user page?
20. happy to see you here! since you're interested in closing discussions, i'll ask an open-ended question about it: what would your process be for tackling a long, complex & controversial discussion?
A: Thanks for the question! I would read through the discussion a first time, then take a close look at the policies and guidelines cited to see if there is a clear policy- and guideline-based consensus. I would then draft a close statement, explaining how I've considered the arguments on both sides and determined the consensus; for a controversial discussion, it would likely be at least a few sentences, if not a few paragraphs. I'd then look over the discussion again to make sure there aren't any strong arguments on either side that I missed (not that there can't be two strong contradictory positions, but I want to make sure I consider every strong argument). If I had missed something significant, I would reevaluate my determination of consensus (and at least modify my close a bit); then I would repeat this process until I'm satisfied that my close accurately reflects all significant points in the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
21. You seem a promising candidate and experienced in Wikipedia. If you "owned" Wikipedia, like Elon Musk with Twitter/X, what would you change?
A: Wikipedia isn't a business and isn't (and shouldn't be) owned by anyone; it's a collaborative project managed by a nonprofit. However, if I was put in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation, I'd put more resources towards the community wishlist, towards technical maintenance such as fixing the graph extension, and towards making it easier for editors to access more resources (such as by expanding the Wikipedia Library). Elli (talk | contribs) 14:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
22. While acknowledging Clovermoss's concern about too many questions, I'll ask one I've asked the past couple of candidates: There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?
A: Being an administrator is a position of significant community trust and carries both technical and social power, and it can be immensely frustrating towards other editors if it appears that an administrator is abusing their position to further their side in a dispute (especially as admins have the ability to block other editors). It's important to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and to adhere strictly to WP:INVOLVED: don't take administrative actions in a dispute you're involved in (with the narrow exception of dealing with blatant vandalism). Being accused and then narrowly cleared of violating INVOLVED is still a bad outcome: another editor is still likely frustrated and feels like they have been treated unfairly by more powerful users.
I've already adhered to this principle as a non-administrator: for example, avoiding closing RMs where I've participated, either in that discussion or in past discussions about the same page. I will continue to do so as an administrator, and take extra care to make sure I do not even appear to be violating the policy. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23.Hello Elli, you said above discussion closes ... are what I'm currently more interested in. Could you close any one of the discussions (you choose which!) listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests to show an example of your current ability to close?
A:Not a question, striking. Candidate is welcome to "answer" this should they so choose. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
25. Would you like to address the concern expressed in the oppose?
A: Yes, thanks for giving me the chance to do so. My most recent post on Wikipediocracy, which I assume is the site Lightburst is referring to, was confirming that I am okay with being referred to by any pronouns, which I clarified after someone told me the question had been raised on WPO; other than that, my last post was in November 2023. Lightburst has not said he has any issues with any of the 10 comments I've made on the site, but if he or anyone else does, I am fine with anyone linking to or quoting any of them.
I disagree with much of what happens on the site, especially insulting and doxxing Wikipedians, and since I became aware of the scope of those issues—I was never a regular there—I became uncomfortable with the site and have avoided participating, except for the recent pronoun clarification (which in retrospect may have been better to say onwiki). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very strong candidate and a good nomination. Toadspike[Talk] 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: qualified, competent, not a jerk, has a need for the tools. No concerns. Cremastra (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Back in days of yore, 2001–2007 or so, the notion was that Administrative buttons were "No Big Deal." This was a unique aspect of Wikipedia's ultra-idealistic operational model. The idea was that through decentralization of authority and self-delegation of maintenance tasks, people would step up as stakeholders and keep the site running. If differences arose, there were simple rules to prevent one-upsmanship and dysfunctional behavior; if something was broken in the process, it could be easily fixed. Admins were volunteer site janitors, and the more the merrier — "many hands make light work," as the saying goes.
For about fifteen years now, the No Big Deal model has not been descriptive of reality. Adminship has become viewed as a sort of cloistered priesthood, with only the most righteous and worthy of Wikipedia's acolytes admitted to its ranks. Apostates and oddballs and troublemakers of the Admin corps from the No Big Deal era have slowly but surely been shown the door or wandered off into the mist — with the occasional melodramatic burning at the metaphorical stake to preserve the purity of the dwindling priesthood.
Potentially successful aspirants — and we don't have to look far into the rearview mirror to see examples — have spent their entire essence at WP crafting what might seem to be perfect resumés, working tirelessly at mind-numbing quasi-Administrative tasks and placing at the altar their one perfectly constructed Good Article amidst satisfied head-nodding and applause. Duplicity and ulterior motives have sometimes come into play in the process.
This candidacy of Elli (née Elliott321) seems to me a refreshing throwback to the days when virtually anyone of demonstrable good will towards The Project got the buttons with goofy little votes of 13–0 or 23–2 — because Adminship was a seen as a rite of passage for dedicated WP volunteers. Even if the power buttons were used only sporadically and infrequently, having a broad swath of committed stakeholders to maintain the site and keep it running at all hours was viewed as a positive value in and of itself. I still believe in that principle.
I've taken a decent look at Elli's editing record and can offer a confident thumbs up to this Wikipedian. Put succinctly: clean block log and no indications of assholery. Not everyone with the Admin flag needs to be Vandal Fighter #1 or dedicate their full days to copyvio investigation or be a master detective of sockpuppetry or a rangeblock technician, or what have you. This candidate with his Old School agenda of working on templates and closing discussions and picking away at administrative backlogs will do just fine. —tim ///// Carrite (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think it should be "her Old School agenda", Carrite. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Word from mouth of horse of indeterminate gender at The Site That Must Not Be Named was that all pronouns are swell. If you wanna interpret "Elliott3321/Elli" as "her" without any statement to that effect here or there, that's fine. I'll go with he, which is equally fine. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good candidate who has already done a lot of good on Wikipedia. Can see no reason not to trust her with the admin tools. Mgp28 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per comments in the discussion section. No red lights. Right away, driver! ——Serial Number 54129 17:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Carrite, thanks for the Gettysburg Address, but any reason for it to be taking up slabs of room here when the discussion area is ready-made. ——Serial Number 54129 17:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:) heh, indeed. Edward Everett's oration was the original address; he spoke for two hours. One Abe spoke for two minutes. I suppose Carrite's oration will go the same way. ——Serial Number 54129 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a support !vote, or a comment on a comment on one? (Asking for a friend who is somewhat 'challenged' in such matters.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the latter, but "Support per the length of the Gettysburg Address" would be quite funny... Queen of Hearts (🏳️⚧️ • 🏳️🌈) 02:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any issues, so that's a support from me. --Panian513 17:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support No issues. —doclys (❀) 17:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 17:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Carrite. Soni (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. About time the !voting opened. I did not need two days to ponder support for Elli. Will make a great admin. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. No concerns at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not a ****, has lots of clue, great content contribution, I think they'll make a great admin. — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ample evidence of competence. No concerns. Maproom (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Elli seems very experienced in different editing areas, especially content creation and NPP, which demonstrates how they are ready for adminship. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 18:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good candidate for admin. Thanks for the nomination. GrabUp - Talk 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. she is definitely experienced enough that she had the mop waiting in a cupboard for a while! JuniperChill (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not previously familiar with the candidate, but I like her answers to the questions, has the requisite experience and enough reputable admins are vouching for her already. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came here fully intending to question the candidate about the relatively high percentage of AfDs she nominated and ended up in a Keep or Merge. But I couldn't find a single case where the nomination wasn't fully justifiable. And more importantly, once sourcing emerged, she was quick to withdraw her nomination, saving everyone's time - a rare and treasured quality among nominators. She knows what she's doing, and we could certainly use the help over at AfD. Owen×☎ 18:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not familiar with her, but she is basically *the* perfect candidate. She gives good responses to the questions and I love the chill vibes of this RfA compared to previous ones. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Carrite. Seems competent and personable, with some use for the sysop bit. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't see a single reason not to. Very competent editor, should make an exceptional admin. AdamBlacktalk • contribs 19:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have nothing to say, this is my default stance. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great all-around editor with an excellent, straight-forward style of communication. Elli will do well as an admin. — CactusWriter (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support great editor who has volunteered enough. Thanks for continuing that path. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per answers to questions and experience. NYC Guru (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a thoughtful and experienced editor. Even though they say having to review yet another RfA with no plant editing can cause Plantipedians to go mad. Some even call me mad. And why? Because I dared to dream of my own race of plant-human monsters, plant supermen that would edit thousands of articles and suck blood... 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support- The questions were answered very well IMO. I have no doubt the candidate will use the mop for good, rather than evil. Good Luck! Aloha27 talk 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great answers to questions above. An experienced editor and excellent content creator. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - (edit conflict) Meets my basic criteria. No serious concerns have been presented. Merely participating on the website that the lone opposition is presumably referring to, without any clear evidence of serious wrongdoing directly on the part of the candidate, is not sufficient grounds for me to oppose. MaterialsPsych (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - now finally a people I can support to after the RFA 2-day discussion period trial. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Lightburst. — hako9 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support An examination of their content seems to indicate they will be a competent administrator. →StaniStani 00:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, why the hell not. Sohom (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, she's kinda downplaying the {{cite tweet}} module that she came up with.[1] Trust her to close discussions, especially after staying calm through this whole RFA. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support a great editor and will become a great admin! :) – dudhhrtalkcontribssheher 01:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't believe I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with this candidate. I am however pleased to see a positive energy that will benefit the project, approve of the content work, and am happy to support based on the more detailed review of editors whose judgement I trust. Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really obviously a competent and conscientious net positive. The one oppose is in fact a guilt-by-association error. Various of us "proper Wikipedians", including several admins, and me, and a number of others, often under our regular WP usernames, have commented more than once at Wikipediocracy to take people to task there for demonstrably false accusations, for doxxing, and for other shitey behavior (which often enough is against that site's own lax policies anyway). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the candidates answers to the questions are good. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and cogent responses to the questions. Grandpallama (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You didn't run back in 2021. If you did, I would !vote Strong Support.Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Oppose I have communicated with arbcom before voting here. My belief has always been that administrators are here to protect content and content creators. I cannot trust this editor to protect content creators because the candidate participates on an off-wiki website where members excoriate and dox Wikipedia editors. I see participation on the site as the candidate’s tacit approval of WP:OWH and for me it is a disqualifier. The candidate directly commented in threads where Wikipedia editors were doxed and harassed, and they participated in a thread referring to Wikipedia editors as idiots. In the spirit of proposal 9b, I have emailed screenshots to arbcom and I have tried to format this rationale according to their advice by limiting my comments. Lightburst (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we get it already, you believe in "guilt by association" and you avidly read every thread on Wikipediocracy to make sure you know who to hate on this week. Good luck with that. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to any uninvolved admin that this is a personal attack and under proposal 9b, a block could be placed. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 00:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IT's not a personal attack to note that LB seems to have, dare I say it, encyclopedic knowledge of who said what when on WPO. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSS, I'm talking about Lightburst's comments, not your statement on the situation. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 00:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to any random admin that promoting an atmosphere of 'hey, block that person I disagree with' is a really bad idea.→StaniStani→StaniStani 00:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's just a disagreement to be against someone placing severe public accusations at RFA under the guise of having sent screenshots at ArbCom. If there is private evidence, then the accusations should remain private. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think you should be siding with Lightburst, who's calling WPO a bad website, on this one, because you're explicitly promoting WPO on your user page. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 00:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They's not siding with them, they's telling us to chill a bit. Heavy handing is not very good for the atmosphere here. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is inappropriately personalised and combative. BoldGnome (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating for overly aggressive blocking is just as problematic and toxic as letting obvious incivility go. People need to calm down, and stop equating every comment they dislike with a personal attack. I'm increasingly concerned about the degree to which efforts to improve civility at RFA is emboldening some admins and voices who want to block other voices with which they strongly disagree, and emboldening an ever-widening definition of what constitutes a personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on whether they indeed supported threads of doxxing. That said, I find that unlikely, considering WPO's policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the part where Lightburst directly alleges that the candidate approves of offwiki harassment as a personal attack. The rest looks to me like either statements of fact or personal feelings about Wikipediocracy, both of which are fair game if ArbCom does indeed not see this as OUTING or otherwise harassment. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the threads there are exceptionally long and discussions (just like here) often sprawl out and there may be several topics under discussion at once. It is ridiculous to even assume anyone has read every single post in some of these threads. One thread that is active over there right now opened almost exactly two years ago and has nearly 1,300 posts in it. The candidate commented in that thread, once, yesterday,in a completely innocuous way, but by LB's logic apparently now they are assumed to have read, and are complicit in, whatever content earlier in the thread that Lightburst is apparentely upset about.
The idea of collective blame for the actions of one member of a group has led to a lot of very bad things throughout the course of human history. (also, dude, WP:STREISAND, has the committee not mentioned that to you at least a couple times by now if you've been talking to them about this?) Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thoroughly dislike the striking out of another editor's comment, which suggests to other readers that the author retracted or struck it themselves. Just drop a warning, or use the npa template, but altering someone else's posts is frowned upon for a reason. Grandpallama (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I'm also a "hardliner" on this issue, but the explanation in Q25 alleviates any concerns I'd otherwise have. Levivich (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
General comments
This is like Ghostbusters II: Elli has come to wash away the negativity of the last three RfAs. Since we're not allowed to !vote at this stage, I'll simply opine that I do not think Elli would not make an excellent admin. ——Serial Number 54129 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too am excited to see this. I expect to support when the !voting opens (and not only to make amends for the fact that I missed the nominator's RfA so owe her one!). GirthSummit (blether) 17:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elli has been on my list of strong candidates for a while now. I'm happy to see this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have more reading to do but my first impression of this candidate is quite good. I look forward to optional questions to learn more. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know we've been admonished for expressing quasi-pre-!votes, but all the same I'm prepared to say I'll likely support this request. < raps own knuckles > --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to comply with the "concerns" requirement. I have a concern about the lack of concern shown thus far by other editors. I also have a concern about Serial Number, but I always have a concern about Serial Number, and if no one gets that, I have a concern about that, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like seeing a prolific content creator stand at RFA. I see a long patrol log, 50k edits, 50% main space edits, and a decent AfD history. It looks like the candidate was editing much more during 2021 than any other year 29,560 edits is three times more than other years. But we can probably say that was a covid thing. I hope to offer support after doing more checks but looks promising. Lightburst (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment. I've asked the edit count question, since it was the only odd thing I found, and I assume others will wonder about it too. I assume the explanation is benign, but the candidate should have a chance to explain it. Toadspike[Talk] 19:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the candidate but her activity levels do not concern me at all as her nominator. Even after that spike in activity, she's still spending an average of 45 minutes a day on the site for both 2022 and 2023. [3] Also, edit count isn't everything. I think it's important to consider what I wrote here: If someone in the first group took an average of 15 minutes to make an edit (e.g. reading comments on a talk page before writing a quick reply, adding a citation to a previously uncited sentence in an article, etc) and they made 100 edits a month, they would be dedicating 25 hours of their time every month to Wikipedia. If their edits took an average of 30 minutes, they would be dedicating an average of 50 hours of their time every month to Wikipedia. I believe that even this level of activity demonstrates active participation and dedication to the project. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 20:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how does it know that... well that's a sobering look in the mirror. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Clovermoss, believe it or not I've read over your RfA criteria before and found the whole piece very well put, especially the edit count part. I didn't mean to be aggressive or accusatory towards the candidate, I just wanted to give them a chance to explain the only oddity most voters will come across (which they have now done to my satisfaction). Sadly RfA questions tend to seem pointed, accusatory, or like deliberate traps even when one doesn't mean them that way. Toadspike[Talk] 11:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: To preface this, it's still a respectable patrol log, but their patrol count (9,008 based on Xtools) is misleading. There's quite a few patrols of non-mainspace pages for some reason which has seriously inflated that number, over 4,000 of which appear to have been marking templates as reviewed. Based on a quarry query, their actual review count would be 1,671 article reviews and 1,174 redirect reviews. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, at times I've tried to help patrol lesser-viewed namespaces. Lots of bad pages (tests, spam, etc) get created there and often avoid scrutiny for a while (you can see some examples at my CSD log). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last is based on quarry:query/83430? It's not accurate. It distinguishes between "article reviews" and "redirect reviews" based on whether the page is a redirect now, not what it was when it was patrolled; reliable data to distinguish redirect/non-redirect patrols doesn't exist for patrols made before November 2023. Worse is that it only counts reviews of page titles that currently exist: total patrol count including now-redlinked titles is 3093 distinct mainspace titles, 10110 in any namespace. (Even that won't see reviews of page titles so horrid that the log had to be revdelled or suppressed, but that's relatively rare.) It's only about an 8% undercount in this case, but could easily be much worse for someone who tags more pages for deletion.
As an aside, the second part of that query is even more misleading. It's looking for deletion taggings, but has both of the same problems - so it's not "only 14 articles and 9 redirects marked for deletion", but 14 deletion markings made with the pagetriage tool on mainspace pages that are currently bluelinked non-redirects, and 9 that are now bluelinked redirects. It doesn't even tell us anything about whether those few patrols were correct: the deletion tag could have been rejected (whether as a speedy or at afd/rfd), or they could have been duly deleted and then a non-problematic version created at the same title. —Cryptic 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation Hey man im josh. After checking more I think it is still a great body of work. And Elli I am going to go sit in the corner now and come back when it is time to support your candidacy. I find your contributions excellent and I am sure you will be a great asset to the project in your new capacity. My questions were not born out of animus - they came from my genuine curiosity. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's absolutely a good body of work, I don't want to disparage it in the slightest. I just felt it to be an interesting observation. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, and no worries; I didn't think your comments were motivated by animosity. I don't particularly remember why I added that userbox, btw, other than that I was vaccinated and glad to be more protected from getting COVID. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like you already. I am going to leave the discussion but I am glad you were not insulted. I hope you break the 0-3 streak as SN has said above. Good luck! Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence with Elli, but with your stamp of approval, I feel propitious. — hako9 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @Cryptic. I'm aware that there's an issue of "patrol" count on xtools vs actuality, for instance, reviewing redirects left behind from a page move don't add to xtools's patrol count. I also forked the query, but I didn't speak on the deletion aspect of it because I know it's incorrect and only counts deletions via the page curation tool. I personally always use Twinkle, so it counts mine incorrectly as well. I think being so heavily involved in NPP I missed out on providing some meaningful context because it's just so ingrained my mind. I'm sorry for that and I very much appreciate your comment. Hate to ask for anything but I've seen your quarry queries and I'd love and really appreciate it if you could provide a modified query that gives us more accurate information. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used a couple queries equivalent to what I've now put at quarry:query/83443, but this isn't really a good place to discuss it further. WP:RAQ's probably best (it might get seen there by someone who knows for sure what the distinction between those log types is; I don't). —Cryptic 23:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistically speaking, she's a great candidate and 4 years is a long time, long enough to become an experienced Wikipedian. As a talk page "stalker",I notice she handles things pretty well. And people really seem too favour her as she's friendly. Doesn't look to bad. When votes open, I plan on supporting but a lil' digging won't hurt;). Soapforduck(Say what?)(Did what?) 20:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleasantly surprised by this candidate's content experience and was very happy to see the anti-vandalism work they've done, including with the semi-automated account ElliAWB. I don't know how to ask about it, but I'm interested to hear more about how this candidate would handle discontent with administrative actions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't witnessed Elli but from the little I can now, all I can say is that they are "one whom you think has the mop, but thanks it's near-near". Happy to see this, infact, lemme reserve my !vote for the time frame. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 06:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite: She already answered Q19 here. Why push it? — hako9 (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Q18 could be answered by Q12... –FlyingAce✈hello 15:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Q18 is more "what do you intend to work on next in technical areas as a admin" whereas Q12 is more "give us a salient summary of your previous technical work". Personally, I'm struggling a bit to understand why they need administrative tools in technical areas (given that they stated that they will not be working in traditional interface-admin areas for now) and Q18 would probably clear that up for me.
That being said, I do think Ellie is more than qualified to become an administrator, they have some quirks (I've had a total of one confusing interaction with them outside the RFA), but most of their edits have no obvious red flags and that's all I personally care about when looking at an administrative candidate. I intend to support unless major red flags are brought up. Sohom (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea that we are supposed to be helping look for skellies prior to the public opening of the closet? Well, I don't know about any skellies. I suppose the requisite links are -- discussions opened, edit count, afds commented at... what else did i miss... I would give a link to the admin score thing, but I thjink that tool is offline now....... because the guy who wrote it got desysopped and indef-blocked himself and left forever 🤔... jp×g🗯️ 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isthis what you're looking for? The score definitely indicates that she's well qualified for adminship. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 20:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lots of things indicate that, but the impression I get is that we are not supposed to just spend the discussion period talking about how the candidate kicks ass etc. jp×g🗯️ 05:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was anything in the wording of the new rule the prohibited positive comments in the discussion-only phase. Indeed if only negative things were allowed, even if only minor, that would risk making the candidate look like a net negative, before the voting has even started. I don't really know what the thinking was behind this two-day discussion window, but I doubt its intention was to unofficially open the Oppose section two days before the Support section! — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed the word "just". JPxG is clearly not saying that. Nardog (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have unfortunately not crossed paths with Elli before now but from their responses to the questions posed, a cursory inspection of their edit history, and their general demeanour in discussions with other editors they seem like a very strong candidate for adminship. I'm particularly pleased with the responses to my questions (Q14 & Q15) - I think cross-project participation where you're able to is always a good thing, it helps to broaden your skills and improve Wikimedia's overall coverage. Plus it's always good to see admins continuing to work on articles (and the more qualified candidates stepping up, the less admin time needs to be monopolised with administration). I'd also like to add it's a welcome change to see an expletive being used in relation to administering Wikipedia that's entirely appropriate. AdamBlacktalk • contribs 22:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a good example of why a pre-vote discussion at RFA is helpful in getting a more accurate result. Yes, from the two earlier RFAs, it does not lessen the pain of rejection (and probably amplifies it), however, my understanding is that we have other fora where an RFA candidate can get an opinion on their suitability. Having the above pre-vote discussion also helps less experienced contributors like myself get an understanding of what is needed at RFA (i.e. from reading the above, this RFA has a very positive chance). Aszx5000 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that something this trial period does seem to encourage is more questions than the standard format. I only have 15 total in mine, this RfA is already up to 21 and we're not even 2 days in. Clovermoss🍀(talk) 13:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And mine had 9 questions. But it is hard to say how many questions one would get. Spicy's had 25 questions, Sdkb's had 24. If anything that we had from DR's RfA, the third day's questioning slowed down significantly. Hopefully it is the same here. – robertsky (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if this holds true, i.e. 2 days of questioning (intense or otherwise), then 5 days of voting with minimal questioning, this works in favour of the candidates as they can take the time out on the weekend to answer questions, and relax a bit more over the week while the votes come in. We may get to see our weekends occupied with RfAs being launched under this format. – robertsky (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A note on the Graph extension: there is an April update, which the Foundation is planning to rework the extension as a service from scratch. – robertsky (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[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. ~~~~}}
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.
^Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
