Requests for adminship (RfA) is one of two processes 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.

Administrator elections, the other process to confer adminship, take place on a five-month schedule.^[1] Prospective administrators may freely choose which process to use. The next administrator election is scheduled for May 2026.

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 community consensus and Arbitration Committee decisions 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.

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).^[2] 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.

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 added after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

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.

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 the extended confirmed right.^[3] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or 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.

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.

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 if there is one. 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.^[6]

(talk page) (64/0/0); Scheduled to end 02:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Monitors:

ARandomName123 (talk · contribs) – Today I have the pleasure of presenting ARandomName123 (ARN) as a candidate for adminship. ARN has amassed a very well-rounded history over their three-and-a-half years of activity. They have a content focus, having written a GA, and more importantly having put in yeoman work at reducing our backlog of unreferenced articles. More than half of their 20,000 contributions are in mainspace. Their contributions to AfD, CSD, CCI, and AfC showcase their careful and diligent temperament: their AfD record, for instance, includes several discussions where the outcome hinged on ARN's research. In each of these venues, giving ARN access to the delete and view-delete rights would benefit the community. ARN is listed as a mentor for new editors, and their talk page showcases their ability to explain policy to newcomers with endless patience. ARN will make an excellent administrator. I invite you to join me in supporting them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ARN first caught my attention with their work at new pages patrol, which showed thoughtfulness in their approach to notability guidelines and their willingness to ask questions. I noticed them further at AFD (a place they hope to work) making well thought out arguments based on sources available and the guidelines that we have. Combined with their work at the resource exchange, and in evaluating content, it becomes clear that this is someone who has a good head on their shoulders and a good understanding of what's expected regarding content on our site. Additionally, they've demonstrated a clear understanding of their own personal limitations, asking questions and pushing to grow as an individual when they meet those limits. All of these things combined, along with their lovely temperament, demonstrate that this is an individual fit for the tools who will handle them appropriately and with care, so I hope you will all join me in supporting ARN's bid for adminship. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay, though I received compensation for participating in a Wikipedia-related study. I also have one bot account, ARandomBot321. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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'm interested in becoming an administrator because I would like to help out with backlogs and maintenance. To start, this would probably include AIV, CSD, or copyright-related issues, as I am most comfortable in these areas. I also feel I have a fairly good grasp of notability, especially in relation to books, so I intend to help with AFDs as well. Additionally, I'd spend some time on AI cleanup, and dealing with editors improperly using LLMs. As for other areas, such as SPI and discussion closures, I plan on gaining some familiarity with them first before getting too involved.

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

A: In terms of specific articles, I believe my best contributions are bringing Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter back to GA status, and rescuing the book Far Tortuga from AFD. I've also done some work in the copyright space in the past, helping resolve a couple CCIs, and clearing the backlog of copy-pasted articles with URLs. However, most of my recent work is in relation to referencing. I help coordinate drives for WikiProject Unreferenced articles, one of which is ongoing, and run a bot to help manage the drive, provide statistics, and automatically detect articles that may be unreferenced. In addition, I am lucky to attend a university with a large library system, which allows me to help out quite a bit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.

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: Like most editors, I've been in a number of conflicts in the past, but I've been lucky in that most have been resolved fairly easily. My preference is just to stick to what the sources say, or refer to guidelines or policy when needed. I try to assume good faith, and remain civil in discussions. In the past, I've found myself acting a bit too quickly, and ended up with comments or in discussions that I regret. As such, if I do find myself particularly stressed or worked up, I find it best to just take a break and step away from the discussion until I can respond more thoughtfully.

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. Make sure to use level-five section headers, not boldface.

4. Your answer to this will have no bearing on my !vote, but as I have asked it before in this situation and I am curious given our recent modifications to the admin-selection process: What led you to choose an RfA over election?

A: I chose to do an RfA because being able to choose when to start helped me better align my run with my workload off-wiki. I also feel that an RfA would provide more opportunity for other editors to give feedback, regardless of whether the run is successful or not.

• Links for ARandomName123: ARandomName123 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for ARandomName123 can be found here.

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their 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.

1. As nominator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. As nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3. A good choice for admin, as well as thanks to the nominators. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
4. A well-rounded person. Whole-hearted support. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 03:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
5. Their AfD nominations all seem very clear and grounded. In addition to books, I see well-researched and policy-based nominations for a biography, a subgenus, a Doctor Who audio drama, and an energy drink. Also, "work in [ ... ] relation to referencing" is underselling their contributions, which sometimes amount to fully rewriting stubs on notable topics, like their rewrite of the article on the abandoned Canadian town of Port Royal, Newfoundland and Labrador. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
6. I have seen them around in various places. They seem to do good work, so I support. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Ingenuity (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, great record and answers to questions. Graham87 (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
9. Happy to finally see this here. Thanks for all your work with WP:AFC. -- asilvering (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
10. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support strong nominations, has clue. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
12. LGTM CoconutOctopus talk 05:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
13. Excellent AfD record as well as excellent responses to their mentees and, as others have noted, an excellent editing history on the whole. Rand Freeman (talk to me) 06:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support MCE89 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support nil ^nz 06:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support thank you for volunteering ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 06:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - Adequate tenure, good looking contribution history, clean block log, no indications of assholery. Welcome aboard. Carrite (talk) 07:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support IsCat (talk) 07:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support wholeheartedly. I've worked with ARandomName123 to help organise WP:URA and been the grateful recipient of their swift assistance at WP:RX several times. They are a good egg. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - honestly, ARN is one of those users I always assumed was already an admin... Obviously highly dedicated to the project, and always helpful and cordial in my experience. I think they'll make a great admin :) Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Massive YES YES YES! To be clear: If it weren't for ARandomName123, there would be no Unreferenced article backlog drive right now. ARN manages the tech backend for the drive, including edit counting and leaderboard updating, and even created a Reviews tool to facilitate verification of citations...and built a special leaderboard that has made it possible to continue competitive referencing of articles all year round. They have also architected a way for us to track the universe of suspected and likely unreferenced articles (and lists), working with SunloungerFrog and others to convert it from an amorphous, ominous looming cloud to a more tangible, tractable "blob" that can be dealt with (i.e. <28k at this writing). Outstanding team player who is extremely thoughtful, responsive, kind, and committed to Wikipedia policies and helping us work faster and smarter. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
22. I am absolutely delighted that ARandomName123 is running for adminship. Their prolific work at the Resource Exchange has impressed me for years and helped hundreds of editors build the encyclopedia. Their AfD record is stellar: they are always willing to search hard for sources and provide solid, guideline-based analysis. They are helping to organize one of the most successful ongoing content-improvement projects, the unsourced articles backlog drives. Best of all, they were willing to correct me when I got something wrong [1]. Willingness to check the work of others and speak up when you see something amiss is a very valuable trait in a future admin. I can only wholeheartedly support this candidate. Toadspike [Talk] 09:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
23. Not jerk, has clue, ergo support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support -- I like the work on unreferenced articles, and that it directly informs how they approach AfD. Renerpho (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support: No concerns at all! —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Clear net positive. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Nothing in their contributions causes me concerns, as far as I can see. Trusted nominators as well, so why not. LightlySeared (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 12:30, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Good work! Rolluik (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support No issues here. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - Their talk page replies are kind and thoughtful. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support for a good candidate. Miniapolis 14:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per noms. Thanks for running. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support TY for volunteering on WP jengod (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
35. i'm not particularly familiar with this user, but i see nothing objectionable and the nominators are highly trustworthy :) ... sawyer * any/all * talk 15:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support: I think this is a fairly well-rounded editor. They seem competent enough and are well vouched-for. Good luck with the mop! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support Quite happy to see this NicheSports (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support FaviFake (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support per noms, no issues determined. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Borophagus (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Net Positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Excellent candidate. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
43. HurricaneZeta^C 17:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
44. Zzz plant (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. Very qualified candidate who does important work with organising the unreferenced articles backlog drive, has experience with GAs and has a good AFD record. I have no doubt they would be a great admin. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 18:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. No concerns. Rzuwig^► 19:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. Has clue, can be trusted with the delete button. ScalarFactor (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Good record in project work and content. Good demeanor. Glad to support. Donner60 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 22:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support, don't see any problems. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 22:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support They're a qualified candidate, and I really appreciate their work on unreferenced articles. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 23:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Thank you for your hard work at RX next to all the other good stuff above! YuniToumei (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
54. Not familiar with the candidate, so I did a deeper dive than usual. I was admittedly worried when I saw a pretty large portion of edits in CTOPs, but closer examination shows nothing to fear. Looking at your talk page, you have the patience of a saint, a theme that is echoed by your work with unreferenced articles. A nice GA and CSD log too (overwhelmingly red when ignoring technical deletions)? I have no problems supporting this. Best of luck, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support don't see any issues! JuniperChill (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
56. LGTM. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support The4lines |||| (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
58. Looks good to me! Ternera (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support thank you! Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 02:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support - a real leader of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. I was unable to find skeletons in this particular closet. Polygnotus (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. LGTM. More than fair regarding Q4. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 06:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I got a bit nervous when you mentioned your focus on AFD, given that seems difficult to audit for most users. Looking through your delete discussions it however looks reasonable, thanks for putting in the time. I found two were it would be great if someone could look at the original page history to check that it wasnt a false positive. Not because it seems likely but because of the severity if it was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piino_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peinnegon_%2815%C2%B058%E2%80%B2N_98%C2%B021%E2%80%B2E%29 Otherwise there is just one case of deleting werworlf erotica for what seems to be a well researched lack of SIGCOV. So not afraid of difficult choices and clubbing any puppies when necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone4125 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone4125: Try Archive.org. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone4125, for the first, I can verify that ARN's comment is correct. For the second, I don't understand why you think you can't verify that one yourself - there certainly isn't anything I can add from being able to see the deleted article. -- asilvering (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out! I couldnt find anything else that looked remotely problematic among the impressive number of AFD contributions! A great catch for the wiki! The second one is a non existing village in Myanmar in a region with ongoing ethnic fighting. I just wanted to make sure there wasnt an indication for "no longer a village" in the original page. But even if it had been something like this " Please ping me if other sources are found." is far from overzealous deletion. Someone4125 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone4125, aside from the infobox, the entirety of that deleted article read: Peinnegon is a village in Kyain Seikgyi Township, Kawkareik District, in the Kayin State of Myanmar. It is located approximately 3 kilometres north-east of Kyeikdon. But even if it did say it was no longer a village, we'd still have the verification problem. So a perfectly merited deletion, in my view. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: for the nominee; some time ago, an administrator justified that a TA responded to an appropriate warning from me with an edit summary consisting of "shove it" ... After revdel, this administrator said that the TA response was understandable because he thought I did not act in good faith despite never using any insult. Another administrator joined the camarederie and admonished me. I left it there because I do not like arguments.
• That said, what's your approach to the "understandable" concept when addressing another user. Do you agree with the unilateral use of a direct offensive comment, etc? CoryGlee 14:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @CoryGlee Shouldn't this go in the optional questions section above? HurricaneZeta^C 17:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but even then, it's a really weird question. Nobody thinking rationally would say, in the midst of their RfA, "yes, it's fine to insult other editors and be rude". voorts (talk/contributions) 17:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was the administrator who used the word "understandable", that I presume CoryGlee is referring to. I offer that discussion as background [2]. CoryGlee (or anyone else) is free to ask the candidate about their approach to civility, but any followup about the incident in question should probably be at my talk page or other more appropriate venue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2026 (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. ~~~~}}

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections

• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year
• Wikipedia:RFA by month
• Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)
• Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies/Chronological
• Wikipedia:List of resysopped users
• Wikipedia:RFA reform

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Requests to remove administrator access for abuse and/or self-de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Former administrators
• Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.