Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Rfa)

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Hog Farm 17 0 0 100 Open 02:47, 22 December 2024 6 days, 22 hours no report
Current time is 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Hog Farm 17 0 0 100 Open 02:47, 22 December 2024 6 days, 22 hours no report
Current time is 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.

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

If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Graham872 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
Worm That Turned2 RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91
FOARP AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 268 106 242 72
Peaceray AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 270 107 239 72
Sohom Datta AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 298 108 210 73
DoubleGrazing AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 104 206 75
SD0001 AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 101 209 75
Ahecht AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 303 94 219 76
Dr vulpes AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 322 99 195 76
Rsjaffe AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 319 89 208 78
ThadeusOfNazereth AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 321 88 207 78
SilverLocust AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 347 74 195 82
Queen of Hearts AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 389 105 122 79

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.

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".

There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.

To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.

The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 04:04:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Hog Farm

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (17/0/0); Scheduled to end 02:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Hog Farm (talk · contribs) – Well, I'm Hog Farm, or HF as I'll usually section FAC reviews. I passed a prior RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm) in January 2021, and was an administrator until I resigned in September 2023 during a rough stretch IRL. Things have sorted out for me since then, and having seen the continued admin drain, I think it's time to get back in the saddle. I will note that for the forseeable future, I expect to pretty much always have lower activity levels in the summer/fall due to how my work schedule operates.

For full disclosure - I've got a few things from my editing history that'll probably come up so I'll go ahead and explain these things from the get-go. In the prior RFA, there were some concerns about overeager CSD tagging from 2020 during my NPP training. Aside from some vague memories of doing some non-controversial CSD deletions as an admin, and a few things at my CSD log, I've mostly stayed away from this area since. I've kept my nose clean with that, and I don't intend to do significant NPP work.

Additionally, some elements of how I handled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) is not my proudest moment, as well as elements of Wikipedia:Featured article review/M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)/archive1, particularly this edit summary. I still hold that an article that can be sourced only to maps is not notable and should be redirected to a list and/or deleted, and I still believe that there were original research issues with parts of the FAR article in the state it was in when the FAR was opened, but I got a bit riled up at let it show to much. I made an informal pledge somewhere (I don't remember when/where) to stay away from that topic matter, and I don't recall any significant editing or discussion participation in that realm since then. If this RFA passes, I do not intend to perform any administrative actions related to US Roads subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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: It's twofold - we've had a bit of a drain administrative manpower lately, and I really think it's important to have content-focused admins represented as well. The last several years of my editing history have mainly focused on content, and while we've got a good number of skillsets represented in the admin corps, I think we really need to have content-focused administrators, since that's what the whole point of the encyclopedia is. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My user page lists 142 articles that I've brought to GA, and 33 to FA (these lists overlap). Landis's Missouri Battery is my weakest FA; I'm about equally proud of the rest of them. On the GA side, my first two are the worst (Batted ball and Battle of Wilson's Creek); I actually self-GAR'd the baseball one awhile back and I keep intending to rewrite Wilson's Creek. Battle of Poison Spring might be the best one overall, as that covers the most controversial topic matter. Marmaduke–Walker duel, Stonewall Jackson's arm, and Daniel Sickles's leg were the most fun to write. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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: See the final paragraph of the self-nomination statement for where things didn't go well. I think successfully bringing 33 articles through the FAC process shows a good ability to "play nice with the other kids" as some of my teacher relatives would say. The one significant involvement with an arbcom case was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 in which I was simply one of the primary witnesses to another editor's problematic behavior. I've stayed off of the drama boards (ANI, AN, etc.). Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions.

Optional question from Pppery

4. Why did you start a new RfA rather than just asking for the tools back at BN?
A: It just didn't feel right to me to ask for that. I frankly kinda expected the resignation to be permanent when I resigned, so it felt to me like that chapter had already been closed. Also, I understand why there's the option to request the tools back at BN, but that feels to back-doorsy to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.

Support
  1. I swear to God I was just about to encourage you to ask for the bits back. charlotte 👸🎄 02:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I fully agree with Kline re this being a "timesink". I'd support mandatory re-RfAs after a certain period of time, but alas... charlotte 👸🎄 03:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First! HOO HOO HOO! LONG LIVE HOG FARM! Panini! • 🥪 02:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support—At first I was a bit confused. I thought to myself, "Wait, wasn't Hog Farm already an administrator?" Well, yes. In fact, I supported his original RfA. This is essentially a reconfirmation. Could he have just posted at the bureaucrats' noticeboard? Sure, he could've. But if it's "too back-doorsy" for his liking (to directly quote his answer to Q4), I have no problem reaffirming my support for him being trusted with adminship. Nothing I've seen from him has ever convinced me that it was misplaced. Kurtis (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, of course, but like Barkeep I'm not a huge fan of making RfAs like this standard practice. —Ingenuity (t • c) 03:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (ec) As per established community consensus, I don't think we need to be back here. That being said, as HF has indicated their hesitancy to use the BN channel, and they do not appear to have left under a cloud, I feel like supporting here is the best way to reaffirm the earlier consensus that was their first RFA.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. To anyone saying that "this is a waste of time": is it really? No one is forced or expected to participate in an RfA. The fact that Hog Farm has made this RfA in the first place is a great way to get community consensus on their standing and not to "backdoor" (his words, not mine) his way back to admin tools. His answer to Q4 is a great answer and I'm very glad to support a former admin who went out of their way to ask again. Kline • talk • contribs 03:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To anyone saying that "this is a waste of time" is either a straw man (no one has said it's a waste of time as of this comment) or a mis-characterization of my position. I said this RfA is a demand of a lot of the community's time. Hog Farm is asking for lots of people - most likely above 200 - to weigh in on his fitness for RfA. That is a lot of editor time. No editor is wasting their time by participating here. We are all volunteers. But Hog Farm could have respected the community consensus about this - admin can ask for it back by right - rather than saying "I want hundreds of people to weigh in". Editor time is incredibly valuable and should be respected. I think Hog Farm is a good admin who we'd be lucky to have as an admin again. But we're now at a second RfA that is ignoring community consensus that asks for lots of editor time in response and that is, for me, a bad thing for our community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The support is not intended to be aiming at anyone in particular, hopefully I didn't cause any bad blood to happen, it's just a general resentment I have from the previous RfA that happened under this pretense (WTT). I do recall that there were comments under the "this is a waste of time" idea, and to be saying that Hog Farm is "demanding" everyone's time by taking ~5 minutes out of someone's day, maybe even less or perhaps more depending on how wordy you wanna get, is a bit absurd, and like I said before, no one is required to weigh in. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point of "[it] is ignoring community consensus" but his last RfA was back in 2021, and there was no such thing as recall until just about now. Wouldn't hurt to get another consensus to make sure you are fit for the position.. I would imagine. Cheers, Kline • talk • contribs 03:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, and also strongly approve going for a new RfA rather than just asking for the tools back – a good way to see if community trust is still present, and reaffirming trust in someone about to get an important toolset is not a waste of time in my opinion. Also linking to Wikipedia:Consensus can change for an argument in favor of this RfA being a positive thing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hog Farm, you were the first person I ever supported for adminship. I am thrilled to do so again; welcome back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support No concerns since last RfA; trusted. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Same as they ever were. ミラP@Miraclepine 03:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I honestly thought you were already a admin, have seen them around, clearly qualified per the participation in FAC. Sohom (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per this. Epicgenius (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Thought they were still and admin. Look forward to them returning to the ranks. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support I appreciate that Hog Farm is assuring they still have the support of the community rather than treating adminship like an entitlement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. after answer to Q4 ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Neutral


General comments
  • As is becoming routine, I've signed up to be this RfA's monitor :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Saluting face emoji charlotte 👸🎄 03:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not "back doorsey" to follow policy and procedure that a consensus of the community supports and yet another "I demand a lot of time of the community to do something the community has said is mine by right" RfA is not a pattern I want. I really like Hog, just as I liked Worm, but I seriously considered leaving this in Oppose for clearly failing to respect project consensus and doing so in a way that spends a lot of time of the community's. At least Worm made it a promise when handing in the tools. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly, I do not understand concerns that this re-RfA is somehow "ignoring community consensus" whatsoever. Hog Farm literally said that he understand[s] why there's the option to request the tools back at BN, meaning that he acknowledges that that is an option, but have chosen by his own volition not to use it. Is it somehow against consensus to do something that is permitted by consensus, but not the default? Is it against consensus for an administrator to want to ensure that they have the continued approval of the community before unilaterally deciding that they're going to be admins again? If anything, this decision might be more aligned with the well-established consensus of WP:ADMINACCT than simply re-requesting at BN. There is no consensus that prohibits what is being done here. No policies or procedures are being violated here. If anyone wants to change that, there's always a way. JJPMaster (she/they) 03:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin isn't unilaterally deciding they get to be an admin again. They ask the CRATS. The crats then follow a procedure, endorsed and regularly refined by the community, to make sure that person still has consensus to be an administrator. But even setting that aside, imagine an admin who regularly finds new articles about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The admin decides "I want to get community consensus to have accountability and so I will nominate for deletion rather than speedy delete"; the AfDs then overwhelmingly endorse the deletion. If this happens a couple times people would shrug and say "how quirky". But if it became a pattern people would start to suggest the admin either delete them as A7 or tag them so some other admin could consider it. By the nature of RfA no single admin can get to that pattern but as a community that same thing can happen. Editor time is incredibly valuable and to a small degree it's elastic - if not for this ridiculous RfA I would not be spending time on wiki right now - but it's not completely elastic. And so individuals thinking carefully about what demands for community time they make is one I would like to see editors think about before embarking on high profile asks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a very bad practice. I was unhappy with WTT when he did it, and I am even more unhappy to see this. I don't think the candidate would be a bad admin, generally speaking, but I am sorely tempted to oppose just based on the fact that they have chosen to ignore longstanding, community-developed processes so that the community doesn't have to waste its time with these re-RFAs of candidates who only need to ask for the bits back at the BN. This should be nipped in the bud. Risker (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


About RfB

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

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert 

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

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

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1263169505"