Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.

Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.

if nominations haven't updated.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Voorts	128	10	3	93	Open	21:06, 8 November 2024	3 days, 5 hours	no	report

Current time is 15:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Voorts	128	10	3	93	Open	21:06, 8 November 2024	3 days, 5 hours	no	report

Current time is 15:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC). —

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

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

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

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

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.

Nominations

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.

Notice of RfA

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

Expressing opinions

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

For more information, see: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats § Promotions and RfX closures.

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. 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". A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

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

Monitors

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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 15:17:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

Voorts

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (128/10/3); Scheduled to end 21:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: ScottishFinnishRadish

Nomination

Voorts (talk · contribs) – Voorts joined the project in 2022, but I came to know him through NPP in late 2023, and I’ve been paying closer attention ever since. I’ve been impressed with his ability to show good judgement in closes, weighing in as a third party in discussions, and in efforts towards dispute resolution. I’ve found he takes the time to ask the right probing questions, to reflect and grow if he’s challenged, and to show humility and admit when he could have done better. I’ve been thrilled to watch him grow and explore other areas since then, doing so thoughtfully, carefully, and with attention to detail.

In addition, his content work speaks for itself, having promoted 12 articles to good article and 7 to featured article status, 5 of which he received Four Awards for. His temperament, patience, and willingness to help would be an asset to the admin corps, and I hope you’ll join me in supporting him. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

Voorts came to my attention via his strong nominations at FAC on topics as varied as law, film, and a political aphorism. In addition to his content work, he has found the time to engage in necessary administrative tasks, including carefully reasoned discussion closes and new page patrol. He has the varied experience and even temperament that are the hallmarks of a successful candidate, and it is my pleasure to co-nominate him in this first-post-admin-election-RFA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks to Josh and Vanamonde for the kind words. I have never edited for pay and never will. I have never edited under another username, except for my sole alt account.

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

A: I have been actively contributing to Wikipedia for a bit over a year and half now. During that time, I have come to appreciate the importance of behind-the-scenes tasks that ensure the smooth functioning of the community and its machinery. I am volunteering to be an admin because I am willing and able to take on additional responsibilities to help with those tasks.

I primarily plan to use the tools in the areas of deletion and user (mis)conduct. Those areas align with my current backend interests, which are participating in AfD, patrolling with NPP and RCP, opining at AN and AN/I, providing third opinions, and closing discussions. I am potentially interested in using the tools in other areas, such as at AE and in SPIs, but I would first have to learn the ropes and feel fully comfortable with any relevant policies, guidelines, and norms.

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

A: My content contributions. I have created articles (and earned some 4As along the way), and brought several of them to FA, GA, and DYK. The articles that I am proudest of are Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., which I brought from an unreferenced stub to FA after an editor asked a question about the case at WP:LAW, and Costello's, a short article on a slice of old New York City.

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: Yes, I have been in conflicts. An example: In December 2023–January 2024, I was in a conflict over a discussion that I had closed. After the close, some editors came to my talk page and requested that I overturn my closure; I declined and suggested a close review at WP:AN. Thereafter, another editor overturned my closure without discussion, and things ended up at AN/I in a roundabout way. I’ll admit that at that point I probably should have just dipped out of that particular conflict, but instead I continued to post defensively at AN/I. After all was said and done, I sought a peer review of my close and have since incorporated the feedback that I received into my closing practices.

I have been in conflicts both before and since that close, and I anticipate that as an administrator who would continue to close discussions, I will face more—including when I get things wrong. I plan to deal with editing conflicts in much the same way that I currently aim to: remain civil, assume good faith, follow our dispute resolution processes, and seek advice of more experienced admins.

---

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 AirshipJungleman29

4. From the two discussions we've had on my talk page regarding closing discussions (see #1 and #2), I seem to have formed the preconception that you are slightly bureaucratically inclined, if that makes sense from context. I'm not saying that's bad—different perspectives are generally good for any enterprise—but would you say that's a fair assessment, or am I just letting a very limited sample size bias my thoughts?

A: I wouldn't call myself bureaucratically inclined (although I am a lawyer, so sometimes I might get a mild case of lawyer brain). I think WP:NOTBURO is an important policy and I have made NOTBURO closes. When the first discussion occurred in July 2023, I don't think that I fully appreciated NOTBURO and I certainly would not have made a similar close challenge today; after re-reviewing everything, I think it was reasonable to rely on the previous discussion in evaluating that RfC's consensus. Regarding the second discussion, which we had a couple of weeks ago about a proposed merge, I do not believe that a close is required for every discussion. I agree that WP:WHENCLOSE states that when editors have reached a resolution and moved on, a close is neither necessary nor desirable. However, editors did not reach a resolution in this proposed merge discussion, and I believe that it is usually desirable to close discussions about article notability. (As an aside, I think that a no consensus close would have been within closer's discretion, and I would not have challenged such a close, but I believe that there was a consensus to merge.)

Optional question from Significa liberdade

5. What did you consider when deciding whether to run for adminship via RFA versus the recent trial election?

A: There were timing issues with myself and the nominators, we had been planning an RfA before the election dates were announced, and I did not consider running in the elections instead because I did not feel that changing plans so close to the original date of nomination was prudent.

Optional question from Chetsford

6. First, thank you very much for making yourself available. My question relates to a comment you made in September regarding Unicorn Riot at WP:RSN. I haven't looked into this source much, though I think I'm inclined to agree with what -- I believe -- your position was with respect to their RS, in that they are RS.
In any case, my question is not about the conclusion you reached but how you arrived at that conclusion. In your comment [1] you explained research you'd done into Unicorn Riot's editorial process and seemed to indicate the results of your research into their correction policy validated their reliability. Can you explain your view as to the role editor-originated primary research contributes toward determination of source reliability, versus research by RS such as WP:USEBYOTHERS? (To put it another way, is the mere presence of a Correction Policy on a source website sufficient to assure reliability or do we need to validate the correction policy is actually being applied and, if so, is that type of robust content analysis the role of editors or the role of other RS?) Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A: I believe that both are important and that this question cannot be answered in the abstract. WP:USEBYOTHERS may, but will not always, provide evidence of reliability (defined by WP:REPUTABLE as “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). In the Unicorn Riot discussion, editors pointed out that it has been used by other reliable sources, including in academic journals, weighing in favor of finding the source reliable. However, use by others will not always mean that a source is generally reliable. For example, The New York Times occasionally credits the reporting of the New York Post, notwithstanding that Wikipedia editors have determined that, on balance, the latter is generally unreliable.

The guideline that I was relying on in the Unicorn Riot discussion was WP:NEWSORG, which states that "the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest" is a sign, although not a guarantee, of reliability. I found that their published corrections and independence policies were sufficient to establish reliability when combined with the fact that Unicorn Riot was founded and is staffed by experienced journalists. I also saw no indication that they do not abide by their policies, but would have reconsidered if other editors had provided evidence of unretracted falsehoods.

Optional question from North8000

7. You probably already thought about this one when deciding to run. It looks like you had a few edits starting 2 1/2 years ago and then really got started 1 1/2 years ago and then did several years' worth of work in those 1 1/2 years. Could you elaborate a bit on.....do you think you acquired the and scope of experience during that relatively short time period to do a good job in the areas that you intend to work in? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A: Yes, I do. As I noted in response to question 1, the main areas I intend to work in are deletion and user conduct. Regarding deletion, I regularly participate in AfD discussions and nominate articles for CSD and PROD, through which I have become familiar with relevant policies and guidelines (see my CSD, PROD, BLAR and merge, and proposed merger logs, as well as some descriptions of selected XfDs that I have participated in). In particular, I try to participate in contested AfD discussions, as I believe my !vote is of more value in a discussion where consensus is currently unclear, but might develop. Outside of deletion discussions, I regularly participate in discussions at WT:N and WT:NBIO, and I have published an essay on the presumption of notability. I believe that I have participated in and closed enough AfD discussions to be an effective administrator in that area. Our community has wide views on notability, some of which may gain traction in one discussion, others in a different one, and I recognize the difference between !voting in a discussion and closing a discussion. (I would be happy to expand on my closing philosophy, if you or another editor would like.)

As for user conduct and dispute resolution, I regularly close discussions (such as the large language model policy or guideline proposal, an RfC on the reliability of Office of Cuba Broadcasting publications at RSN, a mass CfD discussion, and a merge discussion about a Pokémon), provide third opinions, and occasionally offer advice to editors in conduct disputes at AN and AN/I. I would also bring my work experience as an attorney, which often involves mediating disputes, to the table.

If I decide that I want to use the tools in areas where I have more limited experience, such as AE or SPI, I intend to first participate as an editor and take no administrative action until I feel that I have gained sufficient knowledge of PAGs and learned from experienced editors and admins.

Optional question from Kingsmasher678

8. As mentioned above, you've spent a fairly short amount of time on the project, and I was wondering if that gave you some insight into the current new user experience. In light of this, do you feel that the community currently does an adequate job of on-boarding new editors? Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A: I think that the community generally does a good job of welcoming new editors in spaces like the Teahouse and Help Desk, at noticeboards like RSN, and through mentorship projects like WP:GAMENTOR. I think the largest barriers to participation are the complexity, length, organization, and number of PAGs, including some that are duplicative or represent narrow exceptions to general rules (often as a result of a narrowly-framed RfC outcome); our community could operate with a simpler set of rules and a better way of indexing past PAG consensuses.

Optional questions from Espresso Addict

9. Your editing pattern is quite unusual, with a lean towards "backroom" issues from the early months when you first started editing (eg May 2023: mainspace 24%; Wikipedia 26%). Would you care to explain in more detail how this arose? (Genuinely not attempting to insinuate anything here.)

A: Looking back at my projectspace edits for that month, it appears that a little over half of them were to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2023 (30%) and AfD discussions (22.5%). As for GOCE, I became interested in copy editing on Wikipedia because I did not feel comfortable writing a new article and I have had significant prior experience copy editing, so I thought it would be an easy way to ease myself into becoming a more active editor. (As an aside, I copy edited an article that month for the GOCE drive, October 1 (film), which eventually became my first FA.) I don't remember how I found out about AfD or why I started participating there early in my time on Wikipedia; I suppose I just like to discuss the meta-aspects of inclusion vs. deletion.

10. How do you respond to the mention of WP:MALVOLIO in the comments? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A: I don't think I'm a buzzkill, but if you think I'm bringing down the vibes, trout me.

Optional question from Daniel Case

11. You were nominated right after our first-ever trial of administrator elections ended. What made you choose the standard RfA process instead of that? Asked and answered per Q5 above. Instead, I will pose a scenario for you to tell us how you'd handle it as an admin: A user who has edited Wikipedia for years with almost no block history reports an IP to ANEW, claiming it's harassing him by constantly reverting his edits. But, upon reviewing the relevant article history, you find that the edits being reverted—and repeatedly restored—were unsourced, which the IP noted in their edit summaries. What do you do? What do you do? Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A: I would warn the user and the IP for edit warring and explain why even good faith reversions of the removal or addition of content could reasonably be considered edit warring. I would also explain to the user that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and recommend that the content, since it was challenged, be removed from the article until inline citations are added. Moreover, I would advise both editors to discuss content issues on article talk and use dispute resolution mechanisms going forward. Finally, I would shoot the hostage.

Optional question from Rollinginhisgrave

12. Asking this based on your comments on GA verifiability in the Tamara (given name) GAN, do you think it's possible to use Template:Annotated link in a GA, following MOS:SEEALSO?

A: Yes. I believe that SEEALSO is a limited exception to our rules on citation. The position I took at the GAN review of Tamara was based on my understanding of what the GA criteria and the SIA guideline require. In particular, the SIA guideline states: "List items do not require citations if they only give information provided by the source(s) cited in the introduction to the list. If an item gives more information, that should be backed up by citations." (I also note that there were a few other reasons I failed that GAN per my review and further discussion on the article talk page.) I recognize that other editors have expressed disagreement with my views (for example, another editor has pointed out that the WikiProject Anthroponymy article standards do not require citations), I am currently re-evaluating my views on the matter, and I would be open to changing them if the issue arose again.

Optional question from KJP1

13. Looking back, is there anything you could learn from your approach here,[2] and here,[3]?

A: While I stand by my view that there being listed buildings on a street does not per se establish notability of the street itself, I recognize that I was significantly outnumbered in that discussion and probably would not have opened a deletion review if that discussion had occurred today. I also want to note that I appreciate the difference between !voting in a deletion discussion and closing one. For example, sometimes, I will !vote against consensus if I believe that there is a compelling dissenting argument that ought to be put on the table. And, in one instance, I endorsed a merge closure at DRV when I !voted keep at AfD.

Optional question from HouseBlaster

14. Would you be able to talk a bit about your closing philosophy? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A: Wikipedia discussions are closed based on consensus. I understand “consensus” to be a process of compromise that requires careful evaluation of editors' arguments in light of Wikipedia's policies & guidelines (P&Gs), as well as the common sense of the community and occasionally precedent (such as prior RfCs). Consensus (or a lack thereof) may be determined by any editor in good standing who is competent to do so. Administrator status does not give editors any special powers in closing discussions, with the limited exception of discussions that are usually only closed by administrators (such as contentious XfD discussions where deletion is on the table).

When I close a discussion, I first read the discussion. If I have strong views on the matter and do not believe that I can close the discussion impartially, or if I am involved in the subject area of the dispute, I will pass on closing or !vote instead. If I determine that I am capable of rendering an impartial close, I will then review the discussion again, taking notes on the various arguments that have been made, and come up with a rough count of editors who support or oppose each argument. Next, I evaluate the strength of each argument, which primarily involves determining whether the argument is based on P&Gs or generally unpersuasive reasoning, and usually discard the latter (unless editors have presented a compelling reason to ignore all rules). I then compare or weigh arguments that have been presented using various factors. First, I determine whether editors in the discussion have weighed between or responded to particular arguments. Next, if one side of a competing issue does not have the clear weight of P&Gs behind it, I look at the relative numbers of editors who have supported or opposed a particular argument. If a clear majority of editors have supported an argument with more merit than a weaker argument, I will usually find a rough consensus. If an overwhelming majority of editors have supported a strong argument, or if opposing arguments have no grounding in P&Gs, I will usually find a strong consensus. I will usually find no consensus only when all of the arguments are particularly weak or there is a true split in opinion and a finding of consensus would require a super vote.

Finally, if an editor believes that my close is incorrect, I am always open to discussing it. I will clarify my close or re-open a discussion if I am persuaded that I misinterpreted consensus or if the challenging editor supplies compelling new arguments. If I am not persuaded that I was wrong or by the new arguments, I will encourage the challenging editor to open a closure review at AN.

Optional question from Daniel

15. Hi there, thanks for nominating yourself for adminship. I am considering my !vote, and was keen for your thoughts and reflections on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 9 if I may ask for them? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A: This was my first DRV request. (The one discussed in response to question 13 was my second, and thus far last.) At the time, I believed that I was correct regarding the need for revision deletion. Indeed, I still strongly believe that we ought not to create articles about minors based on tabloid publications and family associations. Children—even ones with royal titles—should have an opportunity to live their lives without having a Wikipedia page written about them from a young age. Following the underlying AfD, I thought that the oppose !votes were not sufficient to overcome the need for REVDEL, prompting me to go to DRV. Upon review and reflection—and noting that I still have very limited DRV experience—I find myself mostly in agreement with SportingFlyer's point regarding the appropriateness of DRV for contested REVDEL AfDs. As an administrator, I would not intend to close similar discussions (see my answer to question 14).

Optional question from RCSCott91

16. I'm citing that you plan to use the tools [against] User Misconduct. Any editor who has spent a decent amount of time here knows that vandalism feels like an everlasting battle. For my question, I offer a scenario based on real life situations. You don't need to quote policy, just walk us through what you would do, assuming you were the only admin on duty.

Scenario:
While checking through multiple GA's you notice an IP user who is adding derogatory words and random links to an article. After the assumed rollback and warning, you notice that they may have done similar to as many as 6 other articles in the last hour; many of these articles have the subject of children shows and games. You are the first person to notice this vandalism.
What steps and/or proper documenting for followup action do you take?

A: I would remove the vandalism from the relevant articles and leave a template warning, and possibly additional note under the template warning, on their talk page regarding those articles. If the derogatory words are racist, queerphobic, sexist, etc., I would consider immediately blocking the editor and potentially revdel the offending material if it met the revision deletion criteria (particularly WP:RD2 in this case). If I do not immediately block the editor, I would keep an eye on their edits and block them once they have received sufficient warning if the vandalism persisted. Since this is an IP editor, the block would initially be short per WP:IPBLOCK, but I would extend the block as needed to prevent additional disruption.

Discussion

• Links for Voorts: Voorts (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Voorts 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.

Support

1. charlotte ^👸♥ 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
4. I've come across voorts a few times, but we didn't have a solid interaction until they volunteered to take a GA review on my first big Supreme Court case article, Heckler v. Chaney. Why they chose to go for my 3000-word newbie monstrosity and stick it out for two months of review is a mystery, but I'm grateful they did, because they had a metric ton of invaluable feedback and they were incredibly patient as I did my best to sort through it all. Voorts is polite, methodical, reasonable, and sharp – doesn't get better than that. Easy support :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
5. (edit conflict × 2) Heck yeah. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
6. Support ((edit conflict × 3), well-standing editor, substantial edits. Myrealnamm (💬pros · 📜cons) 21:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Support Good luck. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Mach61 21:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
11. Support, no concerns. Cremastra (u — c) 21:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
12. Support, can't quite put my finger on where we've crossed paths before, but certainly a net positive also per noms, also per theleekycauldron — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 21:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
13. Support definite net positive with an impressive content creation track record. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
14. Support per my nomination statement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
15. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
16. Support Tazerdadog (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
17. (edit conflict × 1) Support Wait a- I thought he already was a mop! Like, legit, I thought he already had the bit! MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 22:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
18. Support – meets my criteria. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
19. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
20. Stephen 22:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
21. Of course! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
22. It was just a few days ago that I found myself wondering when voorts was going to be an admin. Easy support! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
23. Support for a fine candidate. Miniapolis 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
24. Support: I've regularly come across voorts's work through NPP and have never seen issues I can recall. They're easily someone I would have guessed was already an admin. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
25. Support A kind, competent editor. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
26. Support. Not a difficult decision. I note in particular some good contributions to FAC including several thoughtful source reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
27. Support per Tryptofish. (Not a "Personal Attack".) two fine nominators. SerialNumber54129 23:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)) Edited 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
28. – robertsky (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
29. Support His closes at Phase II of admin recall was my first interaction with him. In my eyes they were good closes which got the ball rolling again on the new process. fanfanboy (block talk) 00:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
30. thumbs up ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
31. Support Good candidate. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
32. I have complete trust in the noms that this is a good candidate. —Ingenuity (t • c) 01:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
33. Support - I got the opportunity to review a GAN for them and it was great work.--NØ 01:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
34. Support Have generally been impressed by what I have seen of their work - convinced by nominators and a quick spot-check that adminship would be a net positive for Wikipedia. See also my comment below under the first oppose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
35. Support +1 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
36. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
37. Support – I have always thought that this editor was very competent and helpful, and showed very good judgement in various sorts of cases requiring it. He would make a great administrator. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 02:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
38. Support, easily. I think Airship's right about his bureaucratic bent. (Sorry, voorts. That's lawyerbrain for you.) I also think that most of the times I've noticed voorts in a discussion it's because I've disagreed with him. Nevertheless I am firmly in support; he has good sense and the right temperament. I'd also like to point out a sample of his careful, detailed GA reviews from the past month: a pass and a fail. Clear understanding of WP:V very much in evidence. -- asilvering (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
39. SilverLocust 💬 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
40. Support! I've been waiting to see this for a while. I think voorts has demonstrated excellence in several areas of the project and level-headedness in making difficult decisions such as contentious RfC closes. I'm sure he'll do great work as an administrator. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
41. Support per nom. Have seen their work and the admin mentality is apt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
42. Support I've seen their work and been impressed. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
43. Support Looks great. Also, Blue Rider oppose looks more personal vindictiveness than anything else.--v/r - TP 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    ​ Would you mind striking and rephrasing, @User:TParis? As stated, this sounds like a personal attack. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    I do mind. This is a discussion and we discuss the supports and opposes. There is an oppose that looks like a personal grudge and a vindictive !vote has spilled over here. My comment is intended to sway others that are on the edge to pay it no attention. So, yes, I do mind.--v/r - TP 13:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Femke: I wholly disagree that comes anywhere near to being a personal attack. As I touched on below, it is far closer to being a simple statement of fact; and bearing on mind that TBR has just labeled all criticism of him as "defamation", I think that speaks for itself. It's certainly more within SFR's remit. (Why the hidden ping, by the way?) SerialNumber54129 14:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    SFR disagreed as well on my talk, so will accept my reading is not the majority opinion here.

    Hidden ping was my attempt to not derail the discussion here, subtle hint to discuss at talk or User talk. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

44. Support Nothing bad, great candidate. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
45. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
46. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
47. Just got to know about this RFA today. GrabUp - Talk 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
48. Support No red flags. Mox Eden (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
49. Support I came across voorts in a couple of excellent closures, delved deeper into his contributions and offered a nom, but was too late :). Full confidence they show the ability to grow, take on feedback, are kind to newer users, and use the tools well. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
50. Support Looks great. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
51. Support Though I’m not totally convinced by their decision to close this AFD as keep, it really feels more like a NC. But I have to admit, Voorts have a good ability to analyze whether a source is reliable—even sources from Global South—definitely a useful skill for an admin! PS. if I’m not mistaken, this will be my first vote in an RFA! --— Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
52. Support I have seen them around, thank you for volunteering! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
53. Support. Looks good to me. I don't see any issues. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
54. Support. Has both the P&G knowledge and the right temperament for admin work. Owen× ☎ 11:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
55. Support. Pretty much exactly what we need in an admin. CoconutOctopus talk 12:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
56. Support lawyer brain or not, a good editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
57. Thank you for volunteering. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
58. Support. Good editor from what I can see. CNC (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
59. Support! We need new admins. It's cool to see this process work so close in time to the admin elections. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
60. Support. Seen him around and he seems sound. John (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
61. Support has clue, not jerk ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
62. Support: voorts will be a net-positive. I immensely respect Tryptofish and find myself agreeing with the content of their neutral: a sense of humor is necessary when dealing with this project. However, I also don't mind an occasional visit by the fun police to keep everyone's eyes on the prize. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
63. Support. After reviewing his contributions on xTools I'm confident of his editing ability and helpfulness. Overall he primary does supporting and anti-vandal edits in the mainspace. Very few pages with more than six edits. Though he also does excellent work with lots of edits on a small number of pages such as the featured article Well he would, wouldn't he?. <silly>And digging way down I find five helpful edits early in the history of Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture System. Finally a plausibly plant editing Admin candidate! Ring his brow with a crown of sunflowers and daffodils!</silly> 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
64. Support. Have seen him around, a positive to the project. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
65. Support, precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
66. Support. No concerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
67. Support. I am familiar with the candidate's work and think he'd make a great admin. I have no concerns. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
68. Support. Voorts has done works that I admire and has qualities I would want to see in a sysop. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
69. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
70. Support. per the excellent answer to my question. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
71. Support In my opinion, RfA is a vicious process. Since Voorts is willing to take the chance on the character assassination inherent in that process, I conclude that they have demonstrated a very strong commitment to Wikipedia, and have earned my support. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
72. Support Support. Looks great. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
73. Support – Ammarpad (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
74. Support No concerns. The sole oppose (as of this comment) is not persuasive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
75. Support Has a clue, their edits show me that they would do well as an admin. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
76. Support Why not? -Fastily 21:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
77. Support. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
78. Support Well-reasoned editor, a good addition to the crew with professional mops. Raladic (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
79. Support -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
80. Support and some comments about GA. The process for reviewing Wikipedia:Good articles has had a growing backlog for years. More people are nominating articles for GA reviews than performing them. This has created two pitfalls for people putting an article up for review that sometimes overlap. First, many articles wait on the list for months. Tamara (given name) was nominated for review in April, and Voorts began their review months later in mid-September. That is a process issue and not a Voorts issue. Second, if an article is far from meeting the criteria, it can be "quick-failed". A quick-fail review only notes areas that clearly don't meet the criteria. It does not have to cover all of them if one is far from being met (WP:V in this case). Quick fails maximize limited reviewer time and avoid spending an entire week failing an article that could not pass the standard. They are often viewed as disrespectful by nominating editors, and there is something inherently unfair about them. The nominator is expected to check back regularly (sometimes for months) waiting on the review, and then the review is just immediately closed. Both of these are process issues. Neither are Voorts issues. And until more people volunteer to pick up GA reviews, they'll unfortunately both remain issues with the process. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
81. Support; no problems with answer to my question, and a lot of good people supporting this candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
82. Support will be a great admin Mujinga (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
83. Support Will be a good admin. I have a good opinion of Voorts, and I see nothing brought up by any of those neutral or opposing which concerns me in the slightest. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
84. Support Anyone that can bring something like I also think that most of the times I've noticed voorts in a discussion it's because I've disagreed with him. (cred. Asilvering) as part of a support rationale has a temperament that ultimately makes a good admin. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
85. Support. I've read Tryptofish's comments, and I've read the discussion about the closure peer review. This comment seems to clearly show him listening to feedback about his close. I rarely close discussions, but I think the skills to close discussions are really valuable to the project. I don't think he will abuse the tools, so support. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
86. Support I sure do! He will totally be a reasonable editor and admin for sure! JuniperChill (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
87. Support - I like the candidate's answers and their record is more than good enough! The opposing side unfortunately does not convince me, especially given the "defamation" comment (Special:Diff/1254958362). Brat Forelli🦊 12:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
88. Support. I've read and understood the concerns, but this candidate would clearly be a net positive. Toadspike [Talk] 12:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
89. Support. They aren't perfect, but we don't expect admins to be perfect. I find The Blue Rider's oppose utterly unconvincing. Tryptofish's oppose required more thought, but on balance I don't find it disqualifying - we allow admins to have views that do not accord with consensus as long as they know not to act contrary to that consensus and I have confidence Voorts will act appropriately in this and other regards. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

    Just for the sake of accuracy, at the time that you posted this, my comment was a neutral, not an oppose. I'm going to move out of neutral, but that will be happening after your comment and my reply to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

    My apologies, it was Espresso Addict's oppose (which starts "per Tryptofish") that I was referencing. I've not yet read the !votes left subsequent to mine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

90. C F A 💬 16:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
91. Glad to support. Best wishes. Volten001 ^☎ 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
92. The closure mentioned in Q10 doesn't raise any serious concerns for me. One's opinions about humour in Wikipedia do not in any case, to me, have any bearing on one's suitability for adminship (unless of course one is too inclined to joking). I also do not think it is fair to judge a closer on the effects of the consensus they find, as long as it was determined correctly. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
93. Support. Trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
94. Thanks for answering my question. Happy to support. Daniel (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
95. Support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
96. Support - Per the efforts to clean up road articles. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
97. Support - A clueful, articulate and solid contributor. I expect Voorts will be mindful of any tendency toward stubborn wikilawyering when fulfilling administrator duties as expressed in a couple of the opposes. They should be fine with the tools. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
98. Support Really solid article editing and a calm, sophisticated understanding of policy, such as at previous discussions around ambiguities arising from interpretation of WP:ANYBIO. A wee bit of lawyerly attitude is entirely forgivable given the nature of Wikipedia in this era of the project. The answer to question 10 is no problem, and I think voorts seems self-aware enough to take feedback and do no harm. Steven Walling • talk 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
99. Support - I've seen this user a bit in my time here, usually through my stalking of WP:GANs. I think they took the time to throughly review everything and be responsive to questions, so I had a positive impression of them. Looking over their record in greater detail now, I think they'd make a great admin because they are really balanced - equally involved in content creation, and the "backend" side of things like AfD, GAN etc. I think Q13 really shows an ability to understand where they went wrong and improve in future, which is great - that was the standout question for me. I look forward to their adminship. MolecularPilot 23:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
100. Support' Good luck. — Sadko (words are wind) 00:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
101. Support A very skilled content editor, and reading through the opposes, there's nothing that gives me pause. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
102. Support without reservations. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
103. Frostly (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
104. Support. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 04:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
105. Support Shocked to learn that voorts has only been here for two years considering how helpful he's been! ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
106. Support Giving this user the admin privileges will be a net positive. - tucoxn\^talk 10:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
107. Support - Have had positive interactions with them all round, I don't see a few bad closes as a pattern. Sohom (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
108. Support Charcoal feather (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
109. Support per 0xDeadbeef's comment. A^♭m ^(Ring!) _(Notes) 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
110. —Kusma (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
111. Support Will be a net benefit to the project. Let'srun (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
112. Support The concerns concerning an excess of lawyerness raised in the oppose and neutral section, while not without merit, are not a dealbreaker for me. I've seen voorts around, and, overall, I don't find myself thinking they'd be a bad admin. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
113. Support. The DRV incidents brought up in the questions gave me some pause, but reading the responses, I think that voorts is thoughtful and I expect will do just fine as an admin. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
114. Support. The candidate has strong credentials, and I've been impressed when I've seen him around the project. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
115. Support I've looked through the opposes since I'm quite late to the gig but there is nothing there that is particularly concerning. I think it is more a state of mind rather than any lack of capability. I think with some help and mentorship Voorts will make an excellent administrator. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
116. Support Sir MemeGod _chat 17:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
117. Even though I (and other people), strongly disagree with his decision for requiring citations for a disambiguation list on Tamara (given name), voorts has an impressive content improvement career which I believe would make him a good administrator by defending content creators, which, in my opinion, is what administrators are for. The Blue Rider 17:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
118. Support explicitly because of the candidates bucreautic interest and attitude towards closing discussions. Yes, the candidate cares deeply about the internal structures and policies of Wikipedia. Why else would one become an administrator? An admin is literally volunteering their free time as a bureaucrat.
     Likewise, for Q13, criticizing someone for being wrong isn't helpful unless we analyze the reasons why. Looking at the AfD for Low Pavement, Chesterfield shows that the candidate understands WP:SIRS and what significant coverage is. The reason why the candidate failed is because every commenter decided to implicitly WP:IAR and !vote keep because the street has notable/heritage buildings. Sometimes that happens at AfD for reasons unbeknownst to me. I'd be miffed as well, and I respect Voorts for being honest that their views still haven't changed. We need more administrators that will respectfully disagree and push for change to the status quo. That's what being WP:BOLD is. The most we can expect from someone in that situation isn't to conform their beliefs to consensus, but to acknowledge they're outnumbered and yield to the consensus.
     I'm not sure what a better response to Q10 would look like. WP:MALVOLIO is a hyperbolic comparison of the candidate to a character in a Shakespeare play that doesn't like humour. The candidate sees this and cracks a joke. If your concern was supervoting, this should be said.
     Also, closers do tip the balance with their preferences. It's very explicitly WP:NOTAVOTE and the closer is expected to use their own judgement. Ideally, a closer would provide comprehensive reasons for their decision so the community can tell if the close is wrongly decided. Voorts' does this much more than other closers. That makes it easy to find flaws. I view that as a plus. Generic one or two sentence "Option X won" closes are unappealable by design. Therefore the "why" of a close review is more important than a close being overturned. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
119. I have seen him around and believe he would be a good admin. I am impressed with the quality of his content work, and the other contributions he has made are equally commendable. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
120. Support I waited until further questions were answered, and I'm glad I did, as the responses (especially #14) reinforce the confidence I have in voorts Reconrabbit
121. Support No concerns, net positive. The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 18:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
122. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
123. Support - I've seen them around in various venues, and have noticed their work at AfD. The content work is a plus. No hesitations or doubts about their abilities; they would be a good addition to the team of administrators. Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
124. Support. Normally this editor's active tenure would be too short for me, but the frequency and depth of involvement makes up for it. Net positive, and I don't really see any red flags. With regard to the "Low Pavement, Chesterfield" thing in particular, which seems central to a lot of the opposes, I agree with Voorts and several other commenters in the drawn-out process that the arguments to keep were anti-policy (in particular, they mostly amount to a belief that notability "rubs off" on adjacent topics, e.g. from historic buildings to the street at which these buildings have their addresses, and that idea is flat-out wrong). I'm satisfied by the Q&A indicating considerably growth and reconsideration on Voorts's part with regard to how to assess consensus and do closures, and how to manage conflict that arises regarding closures someone isn't happy with.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

     @SMcCandlish - Agree that they were basically arguing for WP:INHERIT. If you can build up a list of things that are sourced on a street, it still doesn't say anything about that street. FOARP (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

125. Support – Concerns raised here do not come anywhere near close to a level of concern that would make me oppose this candidate. Will be a net-positive. Has a clue, and shows a willingness to listen and to learn. Schwede66 04:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
126. Support Good history of content creation; will benefit the project with the tools. Spencer^T•C 06:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
127. Support per nom. SirBrahms (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
128. Support per above. IMO, unlikely to break the project with the mop. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  12:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

The candidate does not demonstrate knowledge of when to WP:GAFAIL and, more importantly, lacks understanding of one of the core principles of Wikipedia: WP:V, specifically WP:CITE as demonstrated by quick-failing Tamara (given name) mainly due to its lack of citations on a disambiguation list. The Blue Rider 00:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

linking this context here (without comment), for ease of participants: User talk:Voorts/Archive 41#Tamara (given name) review ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition, it looks like there's a significant ongoing dispute between The Blue Rider and a number of other editors at Talk:Tamara (given name). Hey man im josh (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

(extended discussion moved to talk page)

That's an interesting one, I wouldn't require citations for that list of notable people named Tamara. On the other hand, like voorts, I would not have passed the article at GA, and all the other issues they pointed out were entirely correct. Unfortunately the article doesn't have much chance of passing GA at present either (lack of stability). In the end, my difference of opinion with voorts here is far from a dealbreaker when it comes to adminship. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the article would definitely be quick-failed for failing criteria 5 at the moment. It was completely abandoned when I started editing it, but since then, an array of editors has become involved, leading to a lot of drama—sigh. I understand that this may not be a dealbreaker for most people, but that's my only interaction with him, and it was negative, so my vote is going to reflect that. The Blue Rider 01:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Per Tryptofish, somewhat unsatisfactory answer to my Q10, and issues raised in Q13. I see an editor who is very fixed in their particular views and does not appear very self-reflective. The legalistic arguments over sources for streets in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Pavement, Chesterfield and the deletion review that Voorts brought[4] moved me from sitting on my hands to oppose. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose per the unsatisfactory answer to Q10, as well as the concerns raised by Espresso Addict. It seems clear that the candidate will pass at this time, and I hope that as an admin they will display greater flexibility and willingness to listen than has been apparent at times during their non-admin career. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose (moved from Neutral). I'll start by saying that I've read and thought about every comment under both Support and Oppose that has referred to what I initially said under Neutral, and I thank those editors on both "sides" who said nice things about what I said. I've thought about this hard, and I'm coming down quite firmly here in Oppose. In my earlier comment, I discussed this: [5]. Aside from those editors who were just angry, there were detailed comments from another administrator, pointing out problems. I see that an editor supporting has noted the candidate's reply to the administrator, but if I examine that reply carefully, I see that the candidate only stated agreement with some of the concerns raised, and seems to disregard some of the others. In my earlier comment, I made passing mention of WP:MALVOLIO, although it wasn't the central point of my concern. That mention led to Q10, and like other editors, I am very troubled by the answer to that question. Let's face it, RfA is a place to put one's best foot forward, and a candidate can pause and consider before posting anything. That answer is flippant, and doesn't get to the actual concern that was implied in the question. The issue is, in part, whether the discussion close was made with the necessary care, and in part, whether the close displayed a rigidity about postings that were intended to be humorous (whether they were or not) and were made in good faith. Simply invoking WP:TROUT and framing the essay page as being about how one should not be a "buzzkill" misses the deeper point about considering how other editors feel. In my earlier comment, I also discussed this: [6]. Closing a discussion, and then getting involved in a discussion about what comes next, and accusing others of wanting "a second bite at the apple" undermines community faith that the close was made in a truly uninvolved and neutral manner. Here is the actual close, itself: [7]. It bears a close look, keeping in mind the discussion that followed. The candidate found a consensus for option B, and relates that consensus to the Goldilocks principle. As I pointed out in the discussion that followed, one could just as easily make a case that there had been "no consensus"; voorts replied that it was a "consensus", as opposed to a "strong consensus". But the consensus, apparently found through seeking a middle point amongst multiple divergent opinions, had the same effect, "strong" or not. Voorts obviously could not know what would come later, but the effect has been this, and this, where currently the community seems to be throwing the previous consensus for the previous option B under the bus. The answer to Q14 is, on its face, a perfectly reasonable approach to closing discussions, although it's largely just a summary of existing policies and guidelines. But I feel like there is a pattern here of making closes that are a bit imperious, a bit prone to, well, not really supervoting, but allowing his own preference to tip the balance a bit. And there's a pattern of being a bit self-justifying when questioned about possible errors. And closing discussions is a prominent part of this RfA portfolio. Now I consider what might happen if we add the delete and block tools to that, and I worry that we could end up with some questionable use of the permissions, and a limited willingness to be accountable. In total, I don't trust the candidate enough to support. If others disagree with me, that's fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
4. Oppose I wasn't going to comment on this RfA until I saw the recent opposes, I rarely do as I don't often recognise the name of the candidate and a full investigation of edit history can be exhausting. I would like to say "I have seen them around" and leave my oppose at that (it seems that is acceptable for supports) but that would be based on observations at meta about meta issues that are considered irrelevant here. So I base my oppose on "per Tryptofish and Espresso Addict". Character concerns like "very fixed in their particular views" and "don't trust the candidate enough to support". Passionate to a fault is perhaps another evaluation. However, I understand that a feeling initially derived from meta edits may not be a suitable reason to oppose and closing bureaucrats should consider striking my oppose.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
5. Oppose lacks sufficient experience and mainspace contributions. 18.8% page deletion rate gives me no confidence they understand WP:N. Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   You're perfectly entitled to oppose, but I want to point out that the "18.8%" is really 3 out of 16, all of which are incorrectly attributed to Voorts, who was cleaning up after draftifications. No page he actually created has been deleted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   Yes 3 out of 16 is 18.8%. Voorts recreated pages after they were deleted. Mztourist (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   I can confirm all three deleted pages are actually taggings of redirects for deletion by Voorts. They were not the original creator of any of these three. The tool is somewhat broken in this regard. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   Page deletions don't tell us much about someone's understanding of notability; they can simply be a feature of the sort of work the editor does. Case in point: I've created 16K+ pages, of which 2.6K (16.5%) have since been deleted. Meanwhile, I've created 220+ articles, none of which have been deleted, for notability or any other reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   Good god, five four awards, two FAs, and four GAs isn't enough mainspace contribution!? What do you want, a full suite of TFAs and a Nobel Prize? Cremastra (u — c) 21:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

6. Oppose - offered an opportunity for reflection in Q.13, what I saw was more doubling down, with a minor concession. The approach is rather absolutist, which a strong dash of litigiousness that others have commented on. With some 15 editors taking a contrary position, I would have hoped for a little more than "I stand by my view". I didn't get it, hence the oppose. KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
7. Weak Oppose The only interaction I recall having with voorts was this close, and the subsequent discussions. While I recognize that closing isn’t an exact science, and our documentation on how to do it isn’t ironclad, most of the closes I’ve seen end up being along the lines of “it matters less what the guidelines say, and more how the editors in the discussion want to apply them”(one such example). I was surprised then, by a couple of things about voorts’ closing in this case – they closed the discussion in favor of their own interpretation of the guidelines that were discussed in a very small split discussion (2-2); and they were dismissive of me (and others) at their talk page, preferring to let an involved IP editor (who would later be blocked for block evasion and disruption related to this very discussion) defend their close for them, and responding more only when pressed.
   Now, their close’s rejection ended up being out of process, and they seemed to accept feedback on the event, so I don’t hold the content issue of the close against them. I certainly hope they took that feedback to heart, and work to cause fewer headaches for editors whose discussions they close these days. However, I haven’t gotten over how dismissed I felt, and would hope that should they become an admin, voorts’ puts a bit more care into how they interact with normal editors impacted by their decisions. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
8. Oppose, per KJP and Trypto. None of these interactions in themselves is worth paying too much attention to—we all get things wrong or consensus goes against us and sometimes we can't see why until we have some more distance. And of course, we're not obliged to agree with consensus; we're entitled to think that the consensus on any given subject is ridiculous, but we do have to abide by it until we can change it. There was a very clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Pavement, Chesterfield, which quickly became apparent as editors added to the article, but Voorts started by challenging every keep vote and descended to absurdity when editors added more and more coverage and Voorts demanded yet more. Then when the AfD was closed as keep (because there was no other possible outcome), Voorts opened an equally predictable DRV because he felt the outcome was "wrong" (and continued to argue with commenters there until the outcome was beyond doubt). I see a similar pattern in the "self-referential humour" discussion and the GA discussion—a pattern of an editor who not back down when consensus is against them or change their mind when new evidence is presented. That's not a trait I like to see in admins so I must respectfully oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
9. Oppose - regretfully and pointlessly. Too inexperienced and q10 was a not a good answer. I hope I am mistaken. GiantSnowman 21:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
10. Oppose per HJ Mitchell. The behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Pavement, Chesterfield and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 8#8 April 2024 gives me a pause. They appear to have realized and admitted their mistake eventually, however, the fact that they only learned how AfD works as recently as April and are planning to use admin tools in AfD (according to Q1) makes me unable to support. – SD0001 (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

(Moving.) I'm going to start here at neutral, and see what kind of badgering response my comment gets, and then use that information to move to either support or oppose. First of all, I really like the candidate's content work, and I see that as a significant positive. But, as the candidate notes, they've been doing a lot of non-administrator closes, some of which have attracted controversy. In the questions section, there's a link to this [8], where I think there's a legitimate concern about, well, WP:MALVOLIO. And I'll also note that the candidate made the closes that started us on the path to the current petition to desysop an admin, which isn't exactly working out well. Link to discussion about that: [9]. Now, I think that making difficult closes is potentially a good way to step up and help with difficult tasks. But I also think that there's a responsibility to get the consensus right, as well as to process concerns about the close in an impartial manner, and that becomes all the more important when one wants to become an administrator. Although it was good to ask for peer review of the first of those closes, there was an awful lot of feedback that was negative, and the feeling I get from the candidate's responses is just like thank you for your feedback, without really acknowledging that anything was questionable. I also get a slightly defensive feeling in how this was characterized on this RfA page. And again, at the discussion about admin recall, the candidate responded to questions, in part, by moving to being a partisan in the discussion, which undermines faith in the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it's fair to leave a comment in neutral before going one way or the other. My thoughts on this: first, I'd want to see evidence that this is indicative of a larger problem, which it currently does not seem to be. If he's doing "a lot" of closes, I'd be surprised if there weren't a few that prompted argument (Wikipedians love to argue, after all). I don't know if I would have closed the self-referential humor discussion that way, but while I can understand objections, voorts is on firm ground insofar as one side of the discussion arguing against P&G. I also don't think it's a point against him that he sought uninvolved opinions following a fracas where the participants had strong opinions on the close. I have to object more strongly to your characterization of voorts' admin recall closes, in that it's really unfair to retroactively attribute whatever happens with admin recall to voorts of all people. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm now especially interested in seeing the answer to Q10, as I figure out what I think about this. If I take the position of someone opposing – and I'm not there yet – to reply to the things with which you disagree, I'm concerned that this may in fact be a pattern, which is why I'm waiting to see what other editors might say. If you look at the discussion about that first of the two closes, you will see an admin pointing out some specific things that voorts did incorrectly (and I'm not referring here to the editors who were angry about the close, but to someone who gave thoughtful input in the close review), and I'm not seeing voorts taking it on board. As for your taking strong issue about the admin recall close, you are of course correct that it's obviously not voorts' fault that the current petition is what it is. But we went down a long road of bad discussions about consensus or the lack thereof, that would not have happened with a close that was nuanced a bit differently, and we're still feeling the adverse effects of that today. And look closely at the discussion to which I linked. After making an "uninvolved close", voorts quickly started making some pretty strong negative comments about editors involved in that discussion: "a second bite at the apple", and his replies to Joe. Note that a lot of editors were concerned, not just me. That feels "off" for a discussion close; even if voorts only formed those opinions after reading the discussion and making the close, it still comes across as not really neutral. When someone becomes an RfA candidate, and makes closing of discussions a major part of their portfolio, it's reasonable to take care to evaluate what might happen if they close future discussions with the added stature (if that's the right word) of adminship. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I just saw the answer to Q10, and I've gotta say that I'm now getting very close to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Looks like an interesting candidate and a fantastic editor! Adding a Neutral for now as a self-reminder to revisit later after they've had an opportunity to respond to more questions. Chetsford (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Like Chetsford above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Moved to support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

2. I see no need to vote, but as this RfA has come up so soon after I became aware of Voorts, I would like to make a point. A few days ago I was preparing to make a substantial change to Pembrokeshire in respect of the overweight history section, when my first edit in the process was reverted by Voorts without any discussion, despite the fact that I have contributed to the article for years and Voorts not at all, that I can see. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   @Tony Holkham, do you mean this edit? -- asilvering (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Yes. But it's not the edit that's key, but the without discussion that I should have emphasised. Tony Holkham (Talk) 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

3. I think this is pretty firmly in the realm of WP:NOTYET. While there is nothing outright disqualifying about the candidate so I wouldn't be comfortable opposing, there is a concerning lack of content creation at 13 articles, and while it is commendable that he has brought 7 articles to FAC, sometimes quantity CAN be more important than quality when seeing the standard editor's POV. I have also seen evidence of lapses in judgement due to inexperience. In the video game realm he did not retract his merge !vote for Agent 47 even when obvious notability was found and was one of the few who stood in opposition to it being an article, though he admitted the error later. Even odder was his merge close at Talk:List of generation VIII Pokémon. He stated there was a consensus to keep the article when there was anything but. I'd have closed it as No consensus at most, with several well-reasoned arguments from veteran editors like Czar in favor of merging that were weirdly glossed over. Overall I feel it is jumping the gun. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   _{Is this meant to be in the oppose section? Just wondering! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)}

   No, it's a "If you can't make your mind up after doing all that research, or if your feelings and findings are not enough for you to make a firm commitment to support or oppose the RfA, you can place a comment in the 'Neutral' section." In other words, neutral. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Just realized is didn't see the section about that in the paragraph, will strike.

   Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   I've never understood why creating an article is seen as more of an accomplishment than adding the same amount of content in a previously existing article. The only difference is that you get to yell "first!" I find 7 FAs being a "lack of content creation" as almost insulting toward people who put in the hundreds of hours of work relative to the few minutes it takes to create an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   As I said, it is not intending to insult or belittle the work that was actually put into FA's, which I know is intense. But creating articles can teach some things FA won't, like not necessarily focusing on a "safe" article and taking a risk your article might be deleted. This information is useful when you are deciding what articles are salvageable or viable. I still think that "article creation" content making can be distinguished from "article improvement". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

   Yes, article creation is very easy compared to to improvement to FA standard · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   But creating less-polished articles is a great deal better for learning about how deletion works from the creator's perspective. Featured articles are never speedied or prodded, and rarely AfD'd. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

   Espresso summed up exactly what I was trying to say, yes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

   RfA inflation has gotten out of control... ... sawyer * he/they * talk 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Placing myself as a WP:MONITOR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for volunteering. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Daniel Case, it looks like the candidate had already answered Q11 with the answer to Q5 unless I'm missing something? Perfect4th (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  OK ... I'll come up with another question instead. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I made a comment here, and it was moved to the talk page, where one can see it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
• ScottishFinnishRadish my opposing vote is derailing with editors talking about everything but the candidate appropriateness to administratorship. Can some order be restablished? Thank you. The Blue Rider 21:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Please see Special:Diff/1255072805 and Special:Diff/1255072682. RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. The Blue Rider 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  As noted on the talk page, I do think that more was moved to the talk page than should have been. I believe the first two level of replies added relevant context, whereas it was less so from then on out. But we can discuss that further on the talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: May I suggest as a compromise that you leave a link to this discussion in your message stating that you moved it? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that comments two levels deep have been restored. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

---

About RfB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

---

Related pages

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections

For RfX participants

• 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

History and statistics

• Wikipedia:RFA reform
• 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

Removal of adminship

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

Noticeboards

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

Permissions

• 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.