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.

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 Commitee 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).^[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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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]

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.

(talk page) (110/0/5); Scheduled to end 14:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – Hi. I'm Barkeep49 and I'm running because I think it's important that we get some new crats from time to time as long as we keep the role. I think I bring the qualities the community wants in a crat while also representing someone who got active - 2018 for me - with Wikipedia at a very different time than most of our existing crats. I hope the community will agree that I'm a good match for the role.

On the traditional qualifications side, I have experience closing discussions, with the most prominent recent example being the 15 closes during the review of Administrator elections. I'm proud of the fact that the aspect of the close which received the most commentary was not on the content of any of the closes but on my choice to leave uncollapsed the non-snow/moot discussions. This work included findings of consensus that relied on considering the complete discussion, and not just counting the bolded !votes. This kind of careful reading to understand what, if any, consensus was reached is something that I hope the community will find useful in a new crat. My skill as a closer has also been shown by my record of never having a close overturned, including after challenges at deletion review of AfDs I've closed (a small number of times new sources were presented some time after the fact which allowed for a recreation of an article whose AfD had been closed as delete by me which I think is great but not a reflection of my close).

Besides my experience as a closer, I also have experience with RfA. I have nominated a number of candidates - including being the most frequent nominator over the 2021-22 time period. I think this perspective will be useful to add to the crat corp. I also believe I have shown as both an administrator and arbitrator the importance I place on being communicative with community members and being receptive to feedback and I would continue this if selected as a crat.

I have a deep well of respect of the (lowercase c) conservative nature of being a crat. After I received some recent encouragement to consider running, I checked in with a few people I trusted to give me honest feedback about whether or not I was uncontroversial enough to be a crat. If selected as a crat respecting community consensus and expectations will be foremost on my mind while performing my duties. There have also been times when the community has hoped that crats would evolve their role and I would be eager to try and meet any changing expectations the community might have for crats.

Thanks for considering me and I hope I have done enough to earn your support. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?

A: I have read dozens of RfAs and crat chats (including the RfAs of any that ended with cratchats going back to 2014) and have also read Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures. My understanding is that crats are to promote candidates to adminship when there is a consensus among the community to do so and to not promote if there isn't. Consensus to promote is typically found by looking at the support percentage with the community normally expecting RfAs that finish above 75% support to pass; conversely those that finish with under 65% are will normally not have consensus. In between (or in the very unusual cases when there is some reason to doubt the raw support %) is where crats must use their skills in determining consensus.

2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?

A: Given my experience as an arbitrator I am used to having to make decisions that are going to upset or disappoint some people no matter what I decide to do. Historically before making a decision of importance, I will read something multiple times (for instance while closing the Admin election RfCs I read every discussion at least twice, on two separate occasions). When appropriate I also believe in asking questions before making a decision - which I could see happening in discussions about some requests for re-adminship. Then I take some effort to carefully explain my thinking to the community and to be responsive to questions/feedback offered during and after the decision.

3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?

A: I try to live these things and so I hope what I have written above helps to demonstrate how I meet those standards. Beyond what I've already written about my experience as an arbitrator and administrator with fairness and engagement with the community, I have long felt that if I had one Wikipedia "superpower" it was "know what policies and guidelines are out there and have a willingness to check them before saying something." This is something I would obviously bring to my work as a crat as well. I also would just note my commitment to staying current with and being a part of the community. Since being a crat has a higher level of trust required, like with other high trust positions (which for me include Checkuser and Oversighter), I could foresee a time when I gave up being a crat even while keeping adminship, if I found my time/commitment/whatever to Wikipedia was lessening from what it is today.

Optional question from Ganesha811

4. What do you view as the meaning of "consensus" on Wikipedia generally, and at RfA specifically? In a polarized discussion with roughly equal numbers of editors on either side, is consensus ever possible?

A: First I appreciate the skill in smuggling three questions into two relatively compact sentences. I think the description on the policy page is a good meaning of it on Wikipedia in general, Consensus ...involves an effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. At RfA the focus of consensus is on the question "is there trust in this community member or not"? I discuss this in a bit more detail in my answer to Q1. And yes I think in polarized discussions with roughly equal numbers of editors it's possible there is a consensus. Most of the times in that scenario the outcome is going to be no consensus, and the value the closer has to offer is in the summary of the salient points, and with noting possible questions/steps that might find consensus in the future. But sometimes through a careful reading of the discussion, especially when considering the appropriate elements of policies an guidelines, you can find a consensus through appropriate weighting of !votes and/or the discovery that there are points of agreement that aren't immeadiately apparent through a simple headcount of the bolded !votes. I'd encourage you to really look at the closes I highlighted above as I think that shows you not just how I talk about such things, but how I do it in practice. Additionally, I have written further about consensus in my essays Wikipedia:Ignore rules, not consensus and Wikipedia:Wisdom of the crowd. This latter essay is particularly important in a discussion like RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer! I wasn't really trying to get multiple questions in, just give you different angles to expand on your answer to Question 1, which you did with aplomb. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Ganesha811

5. What would you look for when a former admin, desysopped for inactivity, requests the tools back at the Bureaucrat's noticeboard?

A: WP:RESYSOP covers the steps that I would go through. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Vanamonde93

6. Let me start by saying that while we have disagreed on occasion I have immense respect for your judgement, and in a vacuum I would support without hesitation. But: I've put on record quite often my hesitations over concentrating power and responsibility in too few individuals. You aren't currently an Arb, but you are a CU/OS and a U4C member, and if this was November instead of February I would be among several editors suggesting you run for ArbCom again. How do you see these various roles interacting, especially if you stand for another term on the committee? When you stepped down from ArbCom, you noted your view that no individual should serve on U4C and ArbCom simultaneously - is that still how you feel? Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A: I have previously expressed my own discomfort with having too many ArbCrats, including at the RfB that had been the most recent before this one, while also acknowledging that this seems to be a minority view among our community. When I stepped off ArbCom I did so knowing that the odds were high that I would run again at some point in the future. A couple of weeks ago there were some U4C meetings, during which those of us who had been arbs discussed our experiences. Those discussions made me realize how much more content I am with Wikipedia post-ArbCom and how many of the elements that I enjoyed about ArbCom I get to do on the U4C without some of the same stressors. So that, combined with the recent encouragement I received to consider running for crat, has made me rethink running again for ArbCom, such that I no longer see the odds as high. It was an absolute honor to serve the community as an Arb, and I think I did a lot of good in my time, but my current plan is to run for re-election to the U4C and to hopefully serve the enwiki community as a crat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

7. How would you have closed this RFA.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS

A: It's going to be real hard for me to answer that given my own experiences. I remember feeling shocked that an RfA with that support % closed as promote, despite my support. My vote in that arbcom case remains one of the harder ones I had to do while on ArbCom and is one I'm not sure if I got right or wrong even now. More practically I can say that if I !voted in an RfA I'm going to sit out the crat chat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from ProcrastinatingReader

8. You used to be a successful & prolific nominator at RFA, and facilitated reform efforts like WP:RFA2021. Though since at least early 2024[1] you've said you had stepped away from RFA and AFAIK have not nominated candidates or participated in discussions since. Why the step away?

A: I've had multiple people I respect express concern to me at various points that I will burn out and by-and-large I can appreciate why they express concern but am not too worried. But that's because the time that I came closest to burning out and leaving Wikipedia altogether had nothing to do with the areas they express concern about but was instead RfA related. When I decided not to leave, I did decide to make a break with RfA related things for a time. I'm at a point now where I can do RfA related things - closing the admin elections RfCs, !vote in an RfA when I know the candidate well, run for crat (and hopefully do crat related stuff) - without risk of burning out. Perhaps one day I will feel ready to nominate someone again as well, as I am proud of the work I did both nominating and with RFA2021 (which was an overall neutral to fail but do think it helped setup the far more impactful RFA2024). But I'm also committed enough to Wikipedia that I don't want my passion in one area to put at risk the work I do in other areas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

9. How would you have closed this RFA.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikipedianProlific.Note it was extended for 48 hours at (62/19/7)

A: Note: as I stated above I read important/complex discussions I'm closing at least twice on two separate times, but for this RfB question I have only read the discussion once. By 2025 standards, I don't think the extension would have been appropriate given current consensus about what 76% support means and so I think it would have been appropriate for an individual crat to close with a consensus to promote. Let's say for the sake of argument that it hadn't been extended but instead closed after 7 days at 68/23/8, the final tally. This would have been an appropriate range for a cratchat and if I were the first to see it I would have initiated one. My view is that the closer we are to 75% the more likely there should be a consensus to promote and the closer to 65% the less likely there should be a consensus to promote. In this case I take seriously the points the closer made about neutrals adding extra weight to the concerns of the oppose and for me somewhere around 70%, or perhaps just below, I wouldn't find enough of a consensus to promte given the discussion that was had. However, with the way the RfA closed rather than with hypotheticals (at least in 2025) I would find a consensus to promote. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Barkeep49: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Barkeep49 can be found here.
• Barkeep wrote: “my record of never having a close overturned, including after challenges at deletion review of AfDs I've closed”. Is there a way to find AfDs that he closed? I note that AfDstats indicates a very small level of AfD participation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe You can click "Showw pages without detected votes" on AfD stats and it will show a lot of the ones (mostly) he closed. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also this one shows it in a chart. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 03:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. I've disagreed with Barkeep on countless things, especially RfA. But I cannot fault his passion for the project and the invaluable work that he does for it. I encouraged him to run, and trust his judgement and ability.
   We also need our bureaucrats to be more representative: of our fifteen incumbents, only two passed RfA after 2011. I'm confident that Barkeep can provide a fresh and thoughtful perspective to discussions in his new role. I frankly cannot think of a better candidate at RfB. Best, Sdrqaz (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support 100% Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 14:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Level-headed, boring, uncontroversial, willing to put in his two cents...yup, Barkeep has all the qualities needed to make an excellent 'crat ~ Lindsay^Hello 14:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Barkeep is perhaps the first editor who would spring to my mind as a potential new bureaucrat, and I have the greatest respect for his judgement. In the words of Tryptofish describing his recent highlighted close of the AELECT RfCs, Barkeep gives a master class in clueful determination of consensus. I am very happy to be able to support. Perfect4th (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think BK has the experience needed to become a Crat. I also would like to see fresh eyes and perspectives on the team --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongest possible support: Barkeep is thoughtful in their replies, they're excellent at assessing consensus and the weight of points made in discussions, and they've always been willing to, at length, explain the conclusions they've come to. They're unbiased in their efforts to do and we need more "new blood" in the crat pool and I cannot think of a better candidate for such a role. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support for a qualified candidate and, FWIW, I can't remember the last RfB. Time for a fresh horse in the barn. Miniapolis 14:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. I've seen Barkeep in a variety of discussions, in their roles as admin and arbitrator alike, and have consistently found their contributions to be thoughtful, considered, and well-informed. Excellent candidate for the crat corps. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support: Exactly the sort of editor we should trust with this. Glad to see you run. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support – With no reservations. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 15:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support: This is kind of like, the first time I've ever voted in an RfB. When was the last one, again? Mox Eden (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support: To counter the argument the "bureaucrats do nothing" argument, 'crats also manage Wikipedia interface which is very much something that is still important. With that in mind the candidate is a good, fresh pair of hands that I would trust to manage things of such importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, though I tend to agree with Roy Smith below. I always feel that a proper vote with a fixed threshold for passing is best for matters like advanced used rights and that more or less works well if there is a reasonable threshold to overcome for being eligible to vote. Svartava (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17. BK and I sometimes disagree about stuff, but I have 100% faith in their competence, ability to read consensus, and judgment. (And, I mean, we often agree on stuff too; this isn't a grudging support or anything.) As for needing Crats anymore, that doesn't affect my opinion that if we have them, BK would be a good one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18. One of the goats. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd count you as one of the goats Moneytrees, since you yourself said that you have seven rings, which is just as many as a certain someone ;) Fathoms Below (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We'll make it eight, @Fathoms Below... and I never switched teams! Neither has Barkeep! Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Go Lions Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19. Support as I see no reason for an oppose. However, the position does seem somewhat outdated.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support Someone who can be trusted. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support Naturally. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Good luck Polygnotus (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support the discussion on whether crats are needed long-term, or whether something else should replace them, is not a discussion for a single nom. Barkeep meets all the relevant criteria/expectations/trust/etc that we expected from these type of users, and they will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support along the lines of: "What? They're not already a 'crat?" I've watched countless solid, thoughtful and well-considered actions by Barkeep49 over the years he's been a sysop. Few better choices for a new 'crat. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, competent --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Barkeep49 is the Wikipedian I have perhaps the singularly greatest confidence in, on any number of dimensions including dedication, good faith, ability, kindness, long-term vision, and experience. This is an easy support.
    Separately, while I agree with RoySmith's feeling that bureaucrats may not be needed forever, as long as we do have bureaucrats, we should make sure those crats are representative of the community in an ongoing way. The majority of active sysops would make good bureaucrats, and I'd be glad to support many of their RfBs. As I've previously written almost three years ago:

    I intend to support most RfBs from established administrators in good standing who:

    • are engaged with the community;
    • have a demonstrated track record in assessing consensus; and
    • commit to following consensus decisions even when they personally disagree with them.

    I think any administrator who meets these criteria would be a "net positive" addition to the crat corps. Making someone a bureaucrat is a fairly low stakes question compared with e.g. making someone a sysop:

    • In practice, becoming an administrator confers a great deal of influence and discretion (mediating disputes, closing discussions, blocking people, hearing appeals), in addition to a lot of social capital, all at once. The damage that a single sysop can do is immense, ranging from driving folks off the project through intimidation or subtle harassment (accidentally or on purpose) to using their technical access maliciously (BEANS type stuff). This is why as a community we scrutinize RfAs fairly closely.
    • Becoming a crat does not confer much additional "influence" over being a sysop. It's pretty hard to abuse the crat tools, and if a crat did abuse their crat tools, it'd be a lot easier to spot than abusing the sysop tools. The only real power that crats have is to participate in crat chats, which are analogous to being on a closing panel for an RfC, and I think I would trust basically every established admin who meets the criteria above to do so.

    But we do still need new crats, because there are about 20 bureaucrats right now, only five of whom were elected in the last eight years. The pool of people who judge community consensus should include more new blood than that. I'm not personally convinced that crat chats are a good reason to keep an entire usergroup and election process around, but as long as we do have crat chats, we should have new crats.

    Because I think we need new crats, and making new crats is a fairly low-risk activity, I intend to broadly support new RfBs.
    — User:L235/RfB is no big deal

    Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
27. Easy support. Barkeep is a fair and straightforward editor who can adeptly read consensus, and so they would be a great 'crat. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Fathoms Below (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support one of the most level-headed and diligent wielders of the mop who is an example to other mop wielders and aspiring mop wielders. lizthegrey (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support based on extensive good record and BK's kind, wise comment that got quoted here. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support Good idea Leijurv (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support per Kevin (L235) above, per my question, and in response to the reassuring answer to it. BK49, I would still rather have you as an arb than a crat, other things being equal - but you've done your time, and if you'd prefer this to be your role I can't argue with that. I also specifically want to note that while crats haven't had to do much heavy lifting recently - I count 5 crat-chats since 2020 - those discussions can be among the most consequential in the long-term, and I strongly believe the group making them should be in touch with community norms, and as such I value some fresh blood over the marginal security of having fewer crats. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support per others. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support. While sympathetic to RoySmith's comments in the neutral section—I also think that the crat userright should probably be retired sooner than later—I think that Barkeep would be a great addition to the team. bibliomaniac15 18:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support I have only ever observed Barkeep to act with great integrity and wisdom — doing so rather often and thoroughly. While it may be the case that bureaucratship is not that big of a deal, the fact that there are so few of them means we might as well send our best: this guy. jp×g🗯️ 18:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support this is obvious. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
37. FINALLY AN RFB charlotte ^👸♥ 18:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Barkeep is thoughtful, kind, and has significant experience with the RfA process -- exactly the sort of person we want to be a bureaucrat. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - highly qualified, no concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support: thoughtful, principled and full of clue. I'm sympathetic to the neutral !votes, but as long as bureaucrats do exist, Barkeep will be a net positive. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. It's hard to envision a more qualified candidate. Sdkb ^talk 19:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support When I saw on my watchlist that there was an RfB open, my initial thought was 'do we really need more crats?', and I guess I haven't quite answered that question internally. Sure it's an important role, but I haven't noticed a backlog in the fairly limited areas that crats need to take action, and I expect that the existing body of editors working in that role have it in hand. Anyway, I clicked through to see who was requesting that particular bit, and saw that it was Barkeep49. Full disclosure: Barkeep49 took me through NPP school before either of us went through RfA, and he was one of my noms in my own RfA. That might give me something of a bias, but it has also given me opportunity to watch him operate first hand and up close. He is diligent, unswervingly polite, incredibly generous with his time, thorough, reflective, and has a deep understanding of the letter, spirit, and day-to-day de facto operation of our PAGs. I can think of no finer candidate for the crat bit. In my mind, that renders my initial question moot - our current crat corps seems to be handling the task admirably, but I believe that it would be strengthened by Barkeep49's presence. I thank him for putting himself forward. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add, in response to RoySmith's neutral comment below (Roy, you know how much regard I have for your contributions, I hope you won't mind me saying this): whether the role of Bureaucrat is redundant, and whether a well-qualified candidate ought to be appointed to that role, seem to me to be separate questions. For as long as we have crats, I think Barkeep49 clearly ought to be one if he wants to. If we want to abolish the role, there probably ought to be a separate discussion somewhere over at the Village Pump. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

44. Support - seems like a no brainer. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support One of the most consistent, thoughtful, and trustworthy users on this site. Easy no-brainer candidate. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support: Trusted user. ToThAc (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support- Absolutely. Solid candidate.   Aloha27  talk  20:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, unreservedly. Perfect4th (in support #4) has already quoted me quite aptly. I've long been a big fan of Barkeep49, and he would make a fine crat. Like others, I'm not completely sure that we need one more crat, but I also see no downside to having one more. As for the arguments that we should avoid concentration of power, two things occur to me. One is: meh. The "power" that crats have isn't exactly that big, in the overall scheme of things. And the second is that this depends on the person. I trust Barkeep49 enough to be unworried about abuse of whatever power there is, and in fact, I would support him as a crat running again for ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support. Agree with Girth Summit above. Whether or not we need bureaucrats should be decided elsewhere. Until then, this candidate seems qualified for whatever they are using instead of a mop. Good luck! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
50. The question of needing bureaucrats will be resolved elsewhere. For now, while they still exist, I support Barkeep's candidacy per their long-established track record. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Outstanding track, clear net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. Fully qualified and fully trusted. As long as crats exist, anyone qualified should be made one. I'd rather have a lot of crats doing little than few crats having to do a lot. Regards SoWhy 20:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support While I understand that the need for Bureaucrats isn't nearly as extensive as it once was, for the buttons and levers that do still need to be pushed and pulled, I trust Barkeep49 to do so.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support: I don't see why not. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
57. Yes, please! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support For me, Barkeep is probably top of a very short list of "They should be a crat, but they are not". Yes please. Soni (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support I'm surprised to see so much talk about abolishing the crat role. I don't think RfA is going away anytime soon, so we'll have crats for a while. A fresh addition every now and again is a good thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support: Continues to approach his desired areas of admin duty in a professional manner. A deserving member and a solid candidate. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 22:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Thoughts on the role/existence of ‘crats shouldn’t weight on Barkeep’s eligibility. Pour me a drink please! ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 22:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
63. SilverLocust 💬 22:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - Candidate is more than qualified given their tenure and the many hats they've held. Not a difficult decision at all. —Sirdog (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support I doubt anyone needs me to let them know this, but Barkeep49 has a diverse set of edits with no one area dominating according to xTools. Slightly more in the backstage Wikipedia space, but also quite often in article space. They have a particular interest in improving articles about books and literature and did four edits to Big Tree (novel), which is almost, plausibility, arguably plant editing. Someone I can support without complaint. Yay! 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Barkeep is one of those wikipedians that you would think is a 'crat already if you didn't know otherwise. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 23:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. The primary job of Beaurocrats is assessing consensus and Barkeep49 has a consistent record of doing that well. My only potential concern would be unnecessary hat collecting, but they have addressed that in their answers above. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
68. I'll reiterate what I said at Barkeep's RfA five years ago: "I have interacted with Barkeep when they have reviewed many of my GA nominations. And each time they have been civil and patient, ready to find alternative solutions for problems that may came up: for instance, when they failed one of my nominations, they posted to multiple talk pages to ask for other reviewers, and in my view this is a sign of good communication. I also think their contributions focus well on both content creation (e.g. their featured list and several GA's) and admin work (e.g. XFD)." I know that this is not at all relevant to whether they're qualified to be a bureaucrat, but in short, I trust that they know what they're doing. Whether the role of bureaucrats is redundant is an issue that I sympathize with, but also an issue that should be discussed separately. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support: Barkeep has a really solid understanding of how consensus works and a terrific commitment to the project. Communication skills are excellent. A great candidate. Thank you for volunteering. Diannaa (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. If I had to pick any admin to become a bureaucrat, Barkeep would undoubtably be near the top of my list. Masterclass editor, well-reasoned messages around every corner, would make a wonderful crat. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
71. We still need them. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support – Plenty of experience as an administrator and arbitrator; has done great work under these roles and proven competence in those areas. I believe they will continue their great work as a bureaucrat. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 01:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. Truly unreservedly, especially given the answer to Q6. -- asilvering (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support, I guess this is the obligatory "I thought they were", although I'm probably thinking of their time as an Arb. Not super clear on the current roles of 'Crats given RfA reform and other changes, but no hesitation in trusting Barkeep (had to, given number of times I've incorrectly pinged) with toolset. Star Mississippi 02:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. While I understand and mostly agree with RoySmith's comment below about retiring the role of the crats we still have them at the moment and they still have two functions. While Barkeep hasn't explictly discussed their expeirence in request for bot approval I believe more philosophically that the role the crats on the project is about assessing consensus in areas which are prone to controversy or where difficult decisions need to be made that require enwiki knowledge (such as resysops and bot approvals). For this reason I can see a potential continued role for the crats and that Barkeep would be good to have in this role. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Since I was a newbie, editing under 3OpenEyes, he has been willing to help me and countless others. He's done so much already, and I see no reason as to why he shouldn't be a bureaucrat. He's a wonderful person, and his contribs reflect that. Barkeep, thank you for helping me figure out this website, while I continue to break everything attempt to contribute. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 02:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
77. Strongest possible support On a scale of 0 to 10, they are a "10" in every area that matters. Judgement, carefulness, civility, knowledge in all of the wiki areas involved, proven experience in all of the wiki areas involved. Thanks for volunteering......a big plus for Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support, great admin. SWinxy (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support They seem to be a qualified candidate. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 02:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support All's good in the hood with this one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuxtaposedJacob (talk • contribs)
81. Support – I guess there isn't much to say that hasn't been said already; maybe we are not in dire need of more crats, but having more helping hands is always a good thing, and BK is certainly qualified for this role. –FlyingAce^✈hello 03:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. Best of luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support.--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 03:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support very happily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
86. Wasn't expecting to see this, but very happy to support. Good head and can obviously be trusted with the access. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - Always helpful! ~ BlueTurtles | talk 04:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Don't really remember when was the last RfB held. BK is an excellent admin, and even though crats do less work than other groups due to the nature of their work, we still need more of them. GG. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support It's not about needing more 'crats, it's about having a new generation of 'crats ready to take the reins when the oldest of our current 'crats decide they want to stop. If Barkeep is willing to make the commitment, I can think of no one more qualified to trust with the responsibility. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
90. Excellent, couldn't ask for a better crat. I also agree with the rationale of representing on the (what's the collective noun for a group of crats – coven?) editors and admins with shorter tenure. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support with confidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Aqurs1 (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
93. Stephen 09:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support - Tolly4bolly 10:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support for the same reasons expressed by L235 and Girth Summit. Mz7 (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - no concerns, will make a great 'crat. This is not the right place for the 'opposes', which seem to have issues with Bureaucrats as a role, rather than Barkeep as an individual. Totally inappropriate. GiantSnowman 10:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support unreservedly - fullest confidence in his fairness and judgement (and thank you for all your help in the past). Ingratis (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Barkeep is qualified and trustworthy. I don't always agree with Barkeep, but he is exceptionally thoughtful and willing to explain his rationale and thought process. I do worry about your capacity, especially with your more unique roles within U4C, but I trust you will be mindful of your (volunteer) priorities and benefit from learning the different ropes English Wikipedia. To those who say that Bureaucrats are not needed, this is the wrong venue to litigate that, but given most of us here are not bureaucrats (pun intended) about the right forum let's discuss this. Bureaucrats are most prominently visible during RfA 'crat discussions, but behind the scenes crats handle (de)sysop requests both voluntary and involuntary. With the recent admin elections, we will need more bureaucrats on hand to handle the individual cases whether due to temporary breaks, deceased editors, misconduct and more. Could I imagine supporting consolidating Bureaucrats and Arbitrations clerks or other high level roles that function very differently today, but generally all require similar levels of trust and decorum from the community not to screw up permissions or misappropriate admins? Yes. But status quo prevails in the meanwhile. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Fully qualified. I would respectfully suggest that the broader question of whether we still need bureaucrats would be better raised at another venue. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support more Bureaucrats are better than less especially if it is in the hands of trusted users like Barkeep49. Lightoil (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Rzuwig^► 12:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support of course, the role was made for BK. Cabayi (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support—has sound judgment, knowledge and contributions are solid. A net positive for WP, ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 13:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Nemoralis (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
108. Give him --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Why not? (I also agree with SmokeyJoe's reply in the neutral section.) Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support – knowledgeable, level-headed, and well-respected. Graham87 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have the greatest respect for Barkeep49 and there is no doubt he is qualified for the post, but I'm hazy on why we need crats at all. With no offense intended to our current crats, this is basically a cabal who gets to decide close admin elections. Now that we have WP:AELECT, I think it's time to thank our crats for their long and valued service and move on to a more modern way of doing things. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I would like to note that as WP:ALECT is not replacing RFA, just an alternative, we still need people to close and decide RFAs regardless so long as it still exists. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that's a fair argument, @RoySmith, but I also think that Barkeep is someone that can be trusted to understand the place of Crats and their potentially vestigial future, and that it's better to have someone like that than no one at all. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   If your view is that the bureaucrat role should be reformed or deprecated, I'd suggest bringing that forward to the community in a proposal. Since it has nothing to do with Barkeep as a candidate, I don't think RfB will be a particularly productive forum for it. Sdkb ^talk 18:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   There was a time when bureaucrats were considered the most respected, community-connected, wisest consensus-callers, of the community, though perhaps with a bias to being being level-headed and boring.

   Since then, the community has taken bad turns, rejecting bureaucrats’ wisdom in favour of turning their most important role into vote counting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Even with ADMINELECT, someone with technical permissions needs to be able to move users to admin group. That's either Bureaucrats ArbComms from English Wikipedia or Global Stewarts. So without an alternative plan, we need crats still. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Roy Smith, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. What is a bureaucratship? ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 15:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   WP:Bureaucrats should give you the information you seek. 28bytes (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you! ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 13:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. First time voting in an RfB; I have to agree with RoySmith. E_F⁵ 15:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral. I believe that Barkeep49 will make a fine bureaucrat; my position is largely related to the underlying permission which he seeks. I land here because I genuinely believe we already have too many bureaucrats for the tiny amount of work they do, and I see no benefit to the project to expand their ranks. The candidate hasn't written anything significant about their experience with relation to bot approvals, which is one of two key roles of bureaucrats in 2025; I think it would be useful for him to take the time to write something specifically about this task. Risker (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For those who haven't already, check out User:Barkeep49/Essays. Polygnotus (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm curious, when was the last RfB? Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 05:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Lee (successful) and Wugs (unsuccessful) ran within days of each other in 2022 are were the last RfBs until now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, thanks for the answer. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 07:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Worth noting I was significantly the most recent joiner of the project (2017) when I passed (obviously still true). I think the second most recently crat otherwise is at least five years prior. This isn't a problem, but does show why it may be useful to have more recent users to give a further range of experience within the corps. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.