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: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.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
I withdraw this time. I made mistake wherein I had to correct them after learning it, but might have forgot to. I will surely comeback next time with better learning of copyvios and close paraphrasing. -- ♪Karthik♫♪Nadar♫ 16:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final (10/9/1); ended 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC) - Withdrawn by candidate. KTC (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination from TheSpecialUser
Karthikndr (talk· contribs) – Dear friends, its my pleasure to nominate Karthikndr for the admin rights. Karthikndr has been actively editing English Wikipedia for approximately 23 months; from January 2011. He is a tireless contributor with an edit count of 18K+ edits (68% of which are to the main space). He is one of the best contributors to Indian cinema related articles since most of his GAs are from that area as well as he has improved many articles related to it. He also shows interest in articles related to Indian history, politics, Mumbai and articles that are subject to recent changes. GAs such as Ra.One, Rockstar (2011 film) and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam are just few examples of the amazing work he has been doing around. Karthik has managed to get 11 GAs in all and 3 DYKs features on the main page. Other than the shiny work, he has been tweaking and improving any article he comes across; improving, maintaining and updating work that he has been doing throughout, specially to the articles subject to recent massive changes is remarkable and I believe that is needed as much as we need GAs and FAs. Karthik is autoreviewer, filemover, rollbacker here and has participated in AfDs, some vandal fighting and has done good work at RPP. Outside English Wikipedia, with 1K+ edits and upload of hundreds of images, he has been doing great work at commons where he is autopatrolled and upwizcampeditors.
Karthik has been involved in WikiProjects such as Mumbai, Indian cinema task force, various workshops, etc. Off-Wiki, he has been actively involved in various events. He has participated in various workshops and has organized many meet-ups. Following the fund raising on behalf of Wikimedia in 2011, he became active at Wikimedia Mumbai community offline and took part in numerous events such as organizing 2nd Photo-thon in Mumbai. As of September 2012, he serves as the Secretary of the Executive Committee of Wikimedia India Chapter where he got elected after getting maximum number of votes that a candidate ever received. Recently, he played a key role in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in India by organizing and coordinating the process along with his colleagues. Qualities that I find in this user, which impressed me are that he always stays calm, polite and has always tried to help; never really saw a situation where Karthik lost his temper or behaved in a harsh manner. With his work overall, he has showed good understanding of policies and has the attitude to help anyone in a calm and polite manner which I feel is necessary for an admin. He has enough experience around with solid edits and a great asset to the projects that he has participated in. A trustworthy, kind, helpful and tireless editor like Karthik will undoubtedly be a benefit to the community if given the extra tools. Thanks for your time and consideration. TheSpecialUserTSU 16:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination from Tinucherian
I am extremely delighted to co-nominate User:Karthikndr for this RFA. Many of you would have already come across him from the last year's annual fund-raising campaign. TSU has already highlighted his Wiki achievements and I wouldn't want to repeat it again. He is a rockstar Wiki Contributor and a Wiki Evangelist in the real world. I trust him with the tools -- TinuCherian - 17:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thanks TheSpecialUser and Tinu Cherian for your faith in me, I accept the nomination. -- ♪Karthik♫♪Nadar♫ 10:43, 12 December 2012 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Among many of my contributions, creating "Presidency" section in A. P. J. Abdul Kalam is where I enjoyed the most. The research work involved was too much, and it was very challenging for me in finding all references dating back 7-8 years. Secondly, expanding most of references manually in Taylor Swift was too time consuming, but I always enjoyed myself expanding citations, much of the time manually. Most of the contributions to Wikipedia so far has been either adding or expanding/tweaking references. Contributing to Mahatma Gandhi was one of those, where I've provided dozens of references.
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: While, there has been many a times my contributions have either been reverted or been disagreed on, however I have always opened myself to discussion and invited others/WikiProject-members to reach consensus. There have not been any major conflicts that I got into, however I can re-call an event where adding content relating Shahrukh Khan's ageing in his article, with supported reference, proved controversial for me, for the first time. Initially with one single ref, I couldn't object myself, but however, made sure to collect 3 reliable sources claiming same and hence neutralizing the article. This was however opposed by some editors, and this I had reached out to other editors and gathered consensus. The consensus we reached there was that the article requires to be neutralized.
4. Karthikndr, this question concerns articles for deletion policy, an area in which you have indicated an interest.
An article is created by a newly registered WP:SPA editor linking a dozen well known sporting, television and other notable celebrities and presenters with proposed participation in a future annual reality TV programme with a broadcast date 11 months ahead. The most recent series has just finished and no announcements or publicity is available to confirm that the event will take place. The article appears to be a spoof and an editor (A) who recognises the article format tags the article for speedy deletion – G2 and G3. The author is welcomed, notified but plays no further part in discussions. A patrolling CSD Admin. (B), declines to speedy delete but recommends AFD instead. The speedy tagging editor (A), along with several other editors, recommend speedy on the AFD listing and, realising that a delay is likely, removes all unsourced (and unsourcable because the article is a fake and no sources can exist) references to living people from the article on the basis of BLP violation, leaving a vestigial stub. The original CSD Admin (B) is approached by (A) to review their decision resulting in a change of mind and a speedy delete. Admin B then rebukes editor (A) for removing the living people material from an article while it was under AFD discussion. Please consider the various actions (author, editor (A), Admin (B)) and interactions and identify any policy or other related errors by all parties and what you would have done as the patrolling Admin.
If the scenario described is not sufficiently clear let me know before you commit yourself.
A: Hello Leaky, would answer this tricky question as per my understanding. Assuming good faith on the article creator, the upcoming event's article can not be tagged under G2 neither, G3, however (B) did a great job by pushing this for AFD and welcoming community's comment instead of speedy deletion. (A) on the other hand removed all unsourced information, which is neither wrong, and (B) should not be rebuking (A), for removing something which never exists (this is because, the entire community is still welcome to contribute to the article while in its afd's). The case however goes tricky actually, when the creator of the article is no longer active, and hence I believe no one would be adding contents. In this scenario, both (A) and (B) invite me as an admin to close the afd, where I should be delist to gain more comments on the same. Would prefer consensus, instead of votes, which would determine its stay. Believing that the article lacks references over here while is created by SPA, I would be deleting it without prejudice to recreate when RS is available.
Let me know if my understanding was right, or else would your help to understand this scenario. -- ♪Karthik♫♪Nadar♫ 12:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5 The copyright issues raised in the Oppose section are deeply concerning. Please can you therefore respond to the following questions: a) Under what circumstances could a company's logo be uploaded to Wikipedia? b) If an actor uploads a publicity shot of themselves for their article, releasing it under CC-BY-SA, can we use it? c) What is your understanding of the use of press photos on Wikipedia? d) What do you understand to be meant by "close paraphrasing"?
Support - seems to meet my requirements --Nouniquenames 11:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support A hardworking and tireless user.Could make a great admin. TheStrikeΣagle 11:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very hardworking and helpful user. Have seen his contributions and everything looks fine. He will surely be an good admin. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support India related articles can be a bit of a minefield - we could use more admins with expert knowledge in the area, and Karthikndr seems pretty competent. He's a useful asset to the project now; he'd be even more useful as an administrator. Yunshui雲水 11:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose, see below. Yunshui雲水 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clean blocklog and deleted edits look OK, otherwise per nom. ϢereSpielChequers 11:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have already co-nominated -- TinuCherian - 13:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - User has grown over the last year and seems fit for further responsibility. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great work on-wiki and off-wiki. Keep up the good work, Good luck! -- ɑηsuмaη ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Highly enthusiastic user, a quick learner as well. User might want to spent more time learning policies regarding images and copyrights if he ever wants to do administrative tasks in that area. --Sreejith K (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Sorry, strong oppose. Doesn't understand image policy. Several bad non-free image uploads during the last few months (File:Outlook.com sign-in page.jpg, File:Spain winning EURO 2012 title.jpg, File:Kolkata Knight Riders team holding the 2012 IPL's trophy.jpg; [1]), and apparent downright copyvio attempts earlier (File:ST Andrews College.jpg, File:SIES College of Commerce and Economics.jpg; had to warn him about it back in February 2011 [2]; admittedly he was newbie'ish back then). Has also defended copyright-infringing close paraphrasing in DYK's [3] I also have doubts whether this editor's command of international Standard English is sufficient for the complex communicative needs that come with admin tasks. I find very few edits in project space where he has said much that rises above set Wikipedian phrases (such as "keep as per XYZ"), and when he does engage in more substantial discussion, there are frequently obvious grammar errors [4][5][6], of a kind that could seriously hamper his efficiency in fulfilling admin duties. Fut.Perf.☼ 12:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: just found that he re-uploaded at least one of his early copyvios which I had deleted here in February 2011 on Commons as late as August 2011 (File:St Andrew's College Building.jpg). In response to me tagging that file, he is now claiming I am "stalking" him. [7]. Not looking good, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Future Perfect at Sunrise, I'm very bad at images fair rationale, and all my mistake you would have spotted would be round previous year. Also, with tools, I would not focus on beginning on the lines of images, and would concentrate on learning them, hence might take some time. I can also assure you that I have learned many things from past one year. -- ♪Karthik♫♪Nadar♫ 15:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's not enough. It would be okay for a new admin to just not be very knowledgable about image stuff; no problem. It would also be sort of acceptable for a new admin to have a few early mistakes in his edit history. However, actively keeping and defending copyvio uploads (not just bad fair use cases!) at the very moment you are running for adminship is a big no-no. So, straight question and a straight answer please: are you now admitting you took File:St Andrew's College Building.jpg from the college website [8], or are you claiming the college website had it from you? If the latter, will you get OTRS confirmation from the college administration or won't you? Fut.Perf.☼ 15:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As assured, would get an OTRS from college authority. -- ♪Karthik♫♪Nadar♫ 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't avoid my question; you haven't answered it. Are you the author or not? (And as I said on commons, I'm not asking you to write to the college and ask them to just release the image under a free license themselves. I am asking you to get the college to confirm that the image is yours. It's not about the image; it's about whether or not you lied. Fut.Perf.☼ 15:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that I took it from the college website, however this was some time year back, and I have learnt many things on the way. Thanks! -- ♪Karthik♫♪Nadar♫ 15:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holy crap oppose - extremely concerned about such recent copyvios noted above by FPAS. More than anything else, the knowledge surrounding this issue would need to be be improved long before ever granting tools. I'm a bit surprised that the candidate has not addressed this issue in their nomination statements and the fact they did not disclose issues and at least attempt to over-ride potential concerns does not give me the warm fuzzies (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Copyright is a big deal. Admins need to understand it and abide by it (even if they don't agree with the policies). Danger! High voltage! 15:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oppose per WP:NOTNOW, regarding inadequate understanding of copyright and application of our policies in relation to it. I appreciate that in the nominators' judgements, the candidate is qualified for adminship, but FutPerf has highlighted some very valid specific instances which are cause for not inconsiderable concern.
However, I don't see evidence that the tools are likely to be wilfully misused, just perhaps that they might be inadvertently used inappropriately. If this application is unsuccessful, maybe the candidate should consider returning again after being able to demonstrate a fuller understanding of copyright issues. -- Trevj (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, moved from support; largely for the same reasons as Dennis. Yunshui雲水 16:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but some of the copyright concerns are too big for me. Come back again in a year and I'll be glad to support. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, at a time when accusations of "stalking" are getting dangerously common, we really don't need this. - filelakeshoe 16:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
Neutral I'm torn because I feel like we really need good admins who can understand and close Indian cinema AfDs, but at the same time I am very concerned with the evasiveness surrounding the college picture upload. I recommend the candidate withdraw the nomination because it's turning into one of our famous pile-ons. I would support if the candidate came back after having fixed all problems with copyright, etc., but I would recommend they wait at least a year. (As a side note, the English skills that other opposers have commented on don't concern me. He communicates well enough IMO, and we can't expect everyone to have perfect English.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.