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]

(talk page) (145/0/1); Scheduled to end 10:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Monitors: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC), —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giraffer (talk · contribs) – Like many other folks, I've been asking Giraffer to run an RfA for years now, and I am thrilled he finally agreed.

Many of you already know Giraffer as a dedicated, friendly, and all-around talented presence across the project. Giraffer has been editing actively for over four and a half years, and his contributions run the gamut, from his delightful and detailed article work (see, e.g., 2018 United States Grand Prix) to his deep, dedicated project maintainence work. The anti-abuse work that Giraffer has done (especially at SPI, where he has helped develop new methods in behavioral analysis of sockpuppetry) in particular is some of the most skillful and impressive I have seen.

Two years ago, Giraffer received the Editor of the Week award; in his nomination, I wrote: It gives me great joy to nominate Giraffer to be Editor of the Week. With strength in both content creation and administrative work, Giraffer has become one of our very best editors over the last two years. Giraffer's content work includes Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election, an article of major importance which he brought to GA. He shines even more on the administrative and anti-abuse front; as a CU, I can attest that he is one of the most dedicated, prolific, and competent sockpuppet investigations filers including in such complex filings as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sanketio31. Giraffer is especially skilled at finding and responding to cases of ongoing abuse from sophisticated actors seeking to exploit Wikipedia's vulnerabilities; in many cases, without Giraffer's work, significant cases of ongoing abuse would have gone undetected. We've all benefited from his work.

In the years since then, it has been such a delight to see Giraffer grow even further into such a remarkable contributor and maintainer on this project. Touching on some of the less tangible factors that make someone a good admin, over the years I have come to know Giraffer to be eminently thoughtful and self-reflective, willing to think before speaking and yet still change his mind when convinced he was wrong.

It is my privilege to submit Giraffer to the community for adminship, to which I hope everyone joins me in saying, "finally!".

Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

I'd like to (re)-introduce Giraffer, both a fantastic editor and a generally good person in this request for adminship. Giraffer has been on my list of candidates to nominate for quite a while for so many reasons. They are incredibly dillegent in their SPI contributions, but I think equally what interests me is thier willingness to take on tasks, learn the appropriate ways to deal with them and implement them. They have come to myself and others for ways to improve content and really take an interest in making it fantastic.

Equally as important for an admin is an ability to communicate well with users. Giraffer is a genuinely great user to interact with, someone who has great policy knowledge, is frendly but also has a great demeanour and temperament.

I'm sure you will agree with me that Giraffer is a fantastic editor and would do great things with the administrative toolset. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you for your very kind words. I accept. I have never edited for pay. Giraffer (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2025 (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 would like to help out at AIV, CSD (especially A7, G11, and U5), and RD2/3. More and more often I’ve found that I need to ask sysops for help when I would feel perfectly capable of doing something myself, and becoming an administrator would allow me to fulfill my and others’ requests. Once I gain experience with the tools, I would also be open to branching out into areas like SPI, RFPP, and PERM.

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

A: I think my best contributions are probably my F1 GAs: 2018 United States Grand Prix or 2022 Bahrain Grand Prix. They were both full rewrites—I have more than double the authorship of the next highest contributor on both articles—and I learned a tremendous amount from writing them. If I had to pick one, I would say I’m proudest of the Bahrain GP article, since it was the earlier of the two and when I felt like I got the hang of writing prose. I made my start on Wikipedia largely in administrative work, but over time I have come to appreciate content work as among my most rewarding contributions—for which I have many talented and helpful users to thank.

Speaking of administrative work, I am also particularly proud of the Sanketio SPI, which took a long time to research and write.

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: Editing has occasionally made me frustrated. In November, for instance, a user placed an {{expand section}} tag on an article I wrote with little explanation, one week after it passed its GA review. I was annoyed that they hadn’t spoken to me about the issues before tagging given my very recent work on the article, but I tried to express my thoughts politely on the talk page. They responded to my comments in detail, explaining what could be done to improve the section, in ways I hadn’t appreciated. Ultimately they were right to raise the issue, and I took their suggestions onboard and expanded the section. I am much happier with the article after taking their advice.

I always try to be polite and helpful regardless of the situation, but this interaction particularly showed me the importance of listening to someone even if my first instinct is to be defensive. I strive to continue these behaviors going forward.

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

Optional Question from Opm581

4. Will you consider helping to clear the Articles for Creation backlog if you become an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opm581 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A: Truthfully, I have minimal experience with AfC and I don't really foresee myself getting involved with the process anytime soon, regardless of this RfA's outcome. I wouldn't completely rule out helping anywhere on the wiki, but I have other areas that I plan to stick to, at least in the near future. Never say never, though. Giraffer (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from TheAstorPastor

5. I see that you've taken part in 42 AfD. Do you plan to pursue an administrative role in that area, once you become an admin?

A: Possibly, but not immediately. I don't think I have enough breadth of experience there yet to contribute administratively. If I reach a point where I would feel comfortable closing AfDs then I would be happy to try it out, but I don't think I'm going to start doing that soon—currently I plan to focus more on CSDs. Giraffer (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Significa liberdade

6. You have stated that you're specifically interested in G11 speedy deletions. I often find that this deletion criterion is overused. Can you discuss your approach to determining whether an article is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten versus articles that could be revised to meet NPOV? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A: Thanks for the question. I would say that the biggest difference between the two lies in sentence structure. G11able articles are often going to have their sentences structured in a way that makes it impossible to meet NPOV without completely rewriting them from scratch. Articles that can be rewritten to meet NPOV will often have sentences that may contain some promotional language, but can be fixed by changing or removing a couple words.

One way I like to think about this when nominating G11s is to ask myself how much would be left if I were to gut the article of all promotional language, without replacement. For articles that would pass G11, there is usually (almost) nothing left; for articles that could be rewritten, there is usually a decent amount of content left, since I would mostly be removing a few words here and there. Giraffer (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

1. Support. I offered to nominate Giraffer last September, and was far from the only one encouraging them to run. They'll make good use of the tools. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, I've been yelling at Giraffer to run for ages now :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3. Barkeep49 (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not jerk, has clue, plus we definitely need more hands at AIV and RfPP. Happy to support. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support as nom. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strongest possible support Giraffer was ready ages ago! Toadspike [Talk] 11:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support, level-headed candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
9. Took long enough. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 11:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support I have previously unsuccessfully tried to convince Giraffer to run. Soni (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support first of 2025. Good luck :) — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support of course. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support: Rarely does seeing someone run for RfA bring a smile to my face :) I have no reservations at all that Giraffer will be an invaluable administrator (and probably still would have been many years ago!). – Isochrone (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support, about time! Best of luck, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 11:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. A CSD log full of redlinks, strong track record at SPI (which always needs more admins to assess behavioral evidence!). Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
16. Yes please! Giraffer's is a name I've been hoping to see at RfA for some time. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 11:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Good luck! – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support and knock 'em dead. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support — Very good fit for the job. Give 'em the mop. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Good luck!!! Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 12:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support I spot checked a bunch of their speedy tags, and if this is the most "controversial" they get (ie: not at all), then I don't think we've got anything to worry about. If you fancy improving any other motorsport articles to GA, 1996 Monaco Grand Prix would be nice - just saying. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support competent editor and friendly candor. Thank you for volunteering for this under-appreciated role! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support was wondering when they would RfA. DWF91 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support - Don't see why not. I do have one concern involving something off-wiki, but since it's off-wiki it doesn't directly affect this. E_F⁵ 13:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Why not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support At least they admit when they are wrong. Polygnotus (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - Yes. Would like a few more admins working on anti-vand work. There are times when AIV or CSD were really clogged up because too few patrolling admins where online. Giraffer would be really helpful in that. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 14:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support We both have been absolutely HARASSED (in a friendly, half teasing half serious manner ^[FBDB]) into running. While not interacting much onwiki, when we do overlap Giraffer is an excellent voice of reason. It would be awesome to have such a detail-oriented person good at collating info (seriously, check out his ACE guides) to work in the areas that require this the most. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
32. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support - no issues, good record, including 93.8 % accuracy at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
34. As nominator. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
35. Time and time again, I've clicked revert on a vandalism edit only to have Twinkle abort because Giraffer already reverted. Happy to support their candidacy. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 15:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support – Very well-experienced editor who has a history of high-quality content and anti-vandalism work, also works well with other editors. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 16:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support based largely on Talk:2022 Bahrain Grand Prix#Expand background section tag. Our content review processes (DYK, GA, A, FAC, PR) work best as a supplement to ongoing article feedback and improvement. (I have personally improved an existing GA based on a discussion with an IP editor who was mistaken but offered valid feedback that the article could clarify the very thing that they were mistaken about.) In the case of the RFA candidate's tagged GA, they explain why the section is small and say they don't see what else to add. This results in detailed feedback on the GA process, on what should be added, and on comparisons to similar articles of high quality. The RFA candidate substantially expands the article and follows up on the talk page. Regarding admin status: this shows a clear understanding of content policies and how to handle content disputes. There's a common tendency to push back on tagging a reviewed article, which generates conflict, but the best practices displayed above generate a higher-quality encyclopedia. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. I looked into Giraffer's record a short while ago and was impressed by what I saw. I'm glad to see he has put his name forward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
40. wowie! another great addition to the janitorial corps! ... sawyer * any/all * talk 16:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
41. Beat me to a nom 🥲🥲🥲Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support clear areas of focus and a pleasure to see around the site when our paths cross. Reconrabbit 16:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
43. Absolutely! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Leijurv (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
45. OH MY GOD charlotte ^👸♥ 18:31, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
46. Obviously! Cabayi (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support. I've noticed the candidate's work for several years and have been impressed with his work. No reason for him not to have the tools, IMO. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
48. Absolutely & Without Question Blessed are we to have a Giraffe to reach into the highest wiki trees. It's very important for our ecosystem ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 19:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
50. Nothing but confidence in Giraffer! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support No issues (other than their olive addiction). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support because they contributed the Bullseye icon logo, which may or may not be a cross-section of an olive. RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
53. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support No concerns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
55. O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Not sure I've ever run into them before, but I don't have any concerns, and members of the community I trust are all clearly supporting. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
58. Aye The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - I see no red flags here, Support. –Davey2010^Talk 21:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support They seem like they'll be a good admin and they don't have any issues. (I'm a bit disappointed that they aren't planning on doing any AfC work, but I won't vote against an admin candidate just because they don't want to participate in a certain area.) Opm581 (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Looks good to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. Seems like he will make good use of the tools. Sdkb ^talk 21:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. I'm convinced, and we absolutely need more people on AIV. CR (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
65. Thank you, yes ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Nice mixed set of contributions for their pie chart on xTools. Very little article editing, but that is not a ding. Has quite enough editing of articles to understand what it is about even though most of the mainspace edits are vandal reverts. Though, of course, there are no contributions to the most important part of Wikipedia, the plant and other botany articles. So for this oversight we're going to give them the plague. "A plaque, Sir." Ah yes, that's right. The special de-motivational plaque. Remember, you're here for-ev-er. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support! Zingarese talk · contribs (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) 23:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
68. Very highly qualified candidate! Mz7 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support – 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support omg finally! They would make an amazing admin, good luck! :) MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support - Well rounded and a great role model! Good luck. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support, I have had some good experience with them, especially on the Discord, and they can definitely be trusted with the tools. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 00:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support, no red flags. Good luck! ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 00:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
74. Trusted, competent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support – Justiyaya 01:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
76. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support - We need more hands at AIV and they look to have a wondrous track record for the job (apart from the olives, !neutral on that). Parksfan1955 (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
78. Looks good! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support over a nice hot cup of umm nyolokh. Absolutely no reservations, skilful editor. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 02:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support -Skilled editor. Great demeanor. (I am impressed by the enthusiastic support from several established editors for Giraffer to stand for administrator.) Donner60 (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support. - Qualified. No concerns. Pyxis Solitary (yak). Ol' homo. ⚢ 06:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 09:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Trusted editor. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 10:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support:- You're a trusted editor. Great editing skills. Regards, Xiphoid Vigour ༈Duel༈ 10:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support Eh, why not? Mox Eden (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support—Eminently qualified and trustworthy. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support, it's about time! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
91. Certainly Girth Summit _(blether) 17:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. Svartava (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
93. —Kusma (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
94. No concerns. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support Joyous! Noise! 18:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
96. —Ingenuity (t • c) 19:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. This is someone I've seen around, and I have no concerns, no red flags. I don't really have much to add to what has already been said here, but everything looks good to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Great editor, no objections. The AP (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
102. Glad to support! Mkdw ^talk 21:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
103. About damned time. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
104. An easy support. Bishonen | tålk 23:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
105. Support. Competent, no issues. Maproom (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. --Enos733 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support - No concerns. Granting this editor the admin bit will be a net positive for the project. - tucoxn\^talk 00:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
109. Oppose, did not RFA within 30 seconds.^[FBDB] On a more serious note, I think Giraffer will be a excellent and level-headed admin and I trust them with the toolset. My interactions with them have been nothing but positive. Sohom (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
110. Pile-on support – no concerns. –FlyingAce^✈hello 01:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support why not? Aydoh8^[contribs] 02:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support lots of eminently experienced (more than me!) support from those with deep knowledge of the machinery that preserves Wikipedia's intergrity; clear net positive. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support – Sounds good to me. We don't cross paths often but I'm Impressed by the noms and answers to questions. Graham87 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support: Giraffes are cool. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Do I smell a giraffe–penguin alliance forming? charlotte ^👸♥ 04:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

115. Support. We need more long-necked admins (with spots). Chlod (say hi!) 04:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support No worries here. Jordano⁵³ 04:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. No personal experience with this user, but from those who do it seems there should be no surprise this RfA has gone the way it has so far ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support: Having admins is good, having people volunteer to be admins is great for Wikipedia, and having an admin who somehow developed new sockpuppet-detection techniques even before becoming an admin is frankly not something I realized could be done. Definitely seems qualified to admin. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Frostly (talk) 05:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support for so many of the reasons above, cheers! Johnson524 05:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support with no doubts. ~SG5536B 06:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
122. Yes, please. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support. No red flags seen. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support. Definitely seeing you becoming an admin. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support. Very solid candidate. YuniToumei (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support without any reservations. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support a good day for the community. Heart ^(talk) 12:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support happy to see this Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
129. SupportContributions look good. Seems like a great fit for mop duties.Knitsey (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support. Always had a great experience working alongside Giraffe. Pleasant, level headed, and collaborative. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support Good luck! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support. No problems here. Will make a great administrator. Malinaccier (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. I don't see any problem. Best of luck. Baqi:) (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support - Great candidate as others have said, plus I wanted to join in the love bombing! It's always good to get more admins on-board (they're busy enough as it is), plus it's lovely to see so many positive responses to this nomination. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support no issues I see from this editor. – robertsky (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support seems to have a clear understanding of everything, very professional. Will make a good admin Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support thanks for sticking your neck out. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support not a jerk, has a clue. Good fit for the mop. — GhostRiver 17:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support Finally got a clue about RFA. About time! All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support no issues swinquest (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support you aren't an admin yet!? ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 20:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
143. No problem supporting this. Best wishes. - Volten001 ^☎ 20:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
144. Yes, please. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support I've not seen any cause for concerns and plenty to convince me that Wikipedia would be the better for having Giraffer as an admin. Thanks for volunteering. Perfect4th (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Giraffer seems like a great writer... now I have to read about things called sockpuppets. Thanks for the extra work, haha. Anyways, I lean more towards support than not support, but I haven't been around long enough to have an opinion on the matter.--Guylaen (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   If you haven't been around long enough, then don't comment! Simple as. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to serve as a monitor for this RfA. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ganesha811: Do you intend to add yourself above? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Goes to show my inexperience as a monitor - didn't notice there was a designated spot. I've now added myself, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Started a humor essay after only 1 month and 1 day of having an account. Will surely look down upon us. This is disgusting. Polygnotus (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How dare you besmirch the humble olive, pillar of civilization, provider of nourishing oil and mafia profits, and a nice salty snack to boot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Premeditated Chaos: You don't like olives you just like Pez dispensers! Polygnotus (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What godforsaken corner store sells Pez dispensers with tablets that taste like olives :| ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If I ever find myself owning a convenience store for some reason, I will make sure it always has plenty olive-flavored Pez dispensers. charlotte ^👸♥ 19:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Will you, as is traditional for small odd shops, try to get rid of people just poking around? "This is a local shop for local people!" 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is "Don't forget", not "Remember", so it can be turned into "Do it for her". Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  D'oh! Thanks. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I for one, welcome our new olive-addicted giraffe overlord. DWF91 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The costs to install giraffe-accessible doors in the building will be insane. Panini! • 🥪 05:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure even the tallest giraffe can get through doors modified for access by a 60 foot tall fire breathing dinosaur. Giraffer won't even have to remove his top hat if he doesn't want to. ϢereSpielChequers 07:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: So when there's an RFA, I generally look at the editor's contributions. I'm seeing a lot of rollbacks and (semi) automated edits, all good stuff. What I'm not seeing is any activities in any of the swamps which cause problems for admins, or any significant content creation, apart from the couple noted above. Also almost none of the type of activity which we usually respect from a candidate. With all the joke supports above, did any of those actually look at the contributions and find an actual positive reason for having them as an admin, or is it primarily no red flags? AKAF (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't speak for anyone else, but if you want a more "reasoned" support, here goes. I generally look for a couple things in an RFA candidate:

  • a clear indication that they care about the project and its mission of providing verifiable, neutral information to its readers in an accessible format. This doesn't mean they need to churn out GAs all day (or necessarily at all), but Giraffer has been the driving force behind three of those – that's more than enough for me to conclude that they know what good content looks like (and can hence also identify content that is so bad it shouldn't be here, which is what lots of admin work is about in one way or another)
  • demonstrated experience in (or adjacent to) the areas they seek to work in; clearly the case here
  • demonstrated understanding of what areas they don't know (and hence shouldn't immediately start poking around in with admin tools); demonstrated by Qs 1, 4, and 5.
  • constructive engagement in projectspace or other discussion venues; Giraffer is not a super frequent poster to the Wikipedia namespace, but has a track record of posting sensible stuff when he does ([1]); this is a good thing
  • absence of evidence of sustained dickishness or other major temperament or conduct issues. I havent seen any.
  • evidence of being generally pleasant, level-headed, smart, and kind. Having worked with Giraffer behind the scenes on the investigation that preceeded the SPI filing linked in Kevin's nom, I can attest to those qualities.

  Hanging out "in the swamps" is not in and of itself a good or a bad thing. If a candidate spends time there and establishes a pattern of getting things right, great. If they don't spend any time there, also great – in fact, perhaps even better for their burnout risk and level of frustration. A problematic constellation would be a stated intention to immediately go work the "swamps" as an admin without any history of spending time there as an editor, and I'm not seeing any of that. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding onto above since Blablubbs covered about 90% of my points. A majority of antiabuse work happens "out of view" in interest of preventing spilling the WP:BEANS. The people that already work in antiabuse have voiced their trust in Giraffer who see this invisible work the most. I also just passed RFA 2 months ago with a lot less content improvement and creation than he has and no one batted an eye. At the end of the day, it's about proving that you understand both the content and social norms in the community and that you do good work that would be aided by additional tools. Sennecaster (Chat) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (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.