Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
| if nominations haven't updated. |
 | Policies on civility and personal attacks apply here. Editors may not make accusations about personal behavior without evidence. Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks. |
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldsztajn | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Open | 01:45, 23 March 2025 | 6 days, 22 hours | no | report |
| RfA candidate | S | O | N | S % | Status | Ending (UTC) | Time left | Dups? | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goldsztajn | 4 | 0 | 0 | 100 | Open | 01:45, 23 March 2025 | 6 days, 22 hours | no | report |
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 community consensus and Arbitration Commitee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
| Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | O | N | % | ||||
| Barkeep49 | RfB | Successful | 7 Mar 2025 | 219 | 5 | 8 | 98 |
| Giraffer | RfA | Successful | 1 Mar 2025 | 221 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| Sennecaster | RfA | Successful | 25 Dec 2024 | 230 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Hog Farm2 | RfA | Successful | 22 Dec 2024 | 179 | 14 | 12 | 93 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
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.[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.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
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.
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.[5]
Current nominations for adminship
if nominations have not updated.
Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (4/0/0); Scheduled to end 01:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Monitors:
Nomination
Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to bring before this community a longtime and—I submit—most trustworthy editor: Goldsztajn. My first direct interaction with Goldsztajn (that memory permits) was in 2022, when he called me to account for a miscarried AfD closure. Noticing quite immediately that I was dealing with an experienced, insightful, and unusually equanimous individual, I inquired about his openness to serving as an administrator. And his response was much to his credit: I'm presently working on a featured list nomination and a GA nomination, let me finish those and think on your question.
Well, he has had his think and is now prepared to serve.
Goldsztajn began editing intermittently in 2006, becoming very active in 2019. He's since worked in a wide range of areas, both content-wise and internally. He has two Good Articles to his name (1, 2) as well as one Featured List, and he's been a recurring participant in the GA review process. On the back-end, his most significant contributions have been in AfD, to which end he was the chief architect of NSUBPOL. But at various points he's also been a familiar name at the village pump, WikiProject Unreferenced articles, and the admin noticeboards. Most critically, Goldsztajn has demonstrated across these many areas what seems to be unflagging cordiality. This is all the more notable given that his content interests often fall within the realm of politics. A cursory glance at the discourse he maintains with new users on his talk page is ample evidence of his patience. Similarly revealing is his humble admission that his sense of humor can occasionally get the best of him. He has, in short, the character we should like to find in an administrator, and the know-how to back it up. For all these reasons, if not also for the fact that he has a sense of humor, please join me in recommending Goldsztajn for adminship. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: @Arbitrarily0: Thank you for nominating me and for the generous words of endorsement. I've only ever edited under this username. I've never edited for any form of compensation (paid or in kind).--Goldsztajn (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
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: My main interest in the "janitor’s closet" began by getting involved in AfD discussions regularly around five years ago. I started by looking at unresolved nominations which had not been closed after a week and seeing if my contributions could help reach consensus. This evolved into participation in areas I was generally interested in – politics, modern history, sociology, economics, law, although I’ve ended up in lots of other areas. A few years back I started relisting discussions, but subsequently held back from doing that after reading WP:RELISTBIAS and began doing non-admin closes where I felt there was little if no ambiguity. In all my closures, I’ve not been taken to deletion review and if I remember correctly, I’ve only had two requests for reopening (2022 and 2024); in both cases I did so and they were subsequently reclosed as I had originally. (Having seen instances of BADNACs generating poor outcomes, I took the view, as a NAC myself, to reopen any good faith request). I’d like to be able to fully support the work at AfD and be able to engage in the full range of duties. I also would like to further assist at deletion review (eg when appropriate make deleted articles under discussion viewable) and potentially also assist at REFUND.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: I think my single best contribution is Member states of the International Labour Organization which I created and got to featured list status. This involved about a year's work and research covering over a century of international history – the subject itself is something I find particularly interesting and while somewhat of a lesser known part of the subdiscipline, the history of international organisations has drawn increasing attention from scholars in the field (part of the wider emergence of studies of cooperation in international affairs as opposed to the overwhelming focus on conflict). I've completed two GAs – both were cases of subjects whose articles were not in great shape, required full rewrites, addition of new material and incorporation of foreign language sources. I’m also proud of my "indirect" effect on high quality content creation through GA reviews; two of which were particularly collaborative (Talk:Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti/GA1, Talk:Dietrich v The Queen/GA1. I feel my creation of WP:NSUBPOL has helped to delineate the notability thresholds for biographies of subnational politicians while also mitigating issues of WP:BIAS regarding the world outside the Anglo-sphere. I've also been a somewhat regular contributor to the Organized Labour project and tried to keep it active and offer advice.
- 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: When I made my first edits in 2006, to my mind the culture of editing (and who edited) was very different than today. I became somewhat heavily engaged around 2008-9 and then disengaged from 2012 to 2018, mostly due to real life commitments. Around 2009-10 I had one incident where an editor warned me for editing warring, my response was to argue I was not, but looking back I can see that while to the letter of WP:3RR maybe I was not, in spirit I was. Subsequent to that, around the same time, I had a very good experience with an editor working in an extremely contentious topic area who demonstrated to me that it was possible to remain calm, stay patient and contribute to difficult areas (or work with difficult editors) without seguing into conflict. I’ve very much tried to model that kind of behaviour since. Nevertheless, part of my disengagement in 2012 was a dissatisfaction with what I perceived as a somewhat combative culture. In that sense, my experience when dissatisfied or frustrated has been to step back. In 2019, when I returned to editing consistently, I found there were noticeable changes and a more widespread culture of positive behaviour. Furthermore, there are now far more robust mechanisms shaping content creation and editing; Wikipedia has matured and there is a relatively more geographically and generationally varied corps of participants. I apply a personal WP:1RR to all my content work, follow WP:BRD and uphold the adage that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Of course, the last couple of years have not been without very significant debates over behaviour and sanctions, but IMHO, there is now a stronger culture of civility and collaboration. I really see that as an important factor in dealing with conflict – trying as hard as possible to be consistently civil in all one’s interactions, to assume good faith and accept that although disagreements will occur (because worldviews can be so different) they can be resolved…and there’s always other people to ask for assistance.
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.
Discussion
- Links for Goldsztajn: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Goldsztajn can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.
Support
- charlotte 👸♥ 02:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Happy to see this nom. Fully qualified and well-vetted candidate. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not a jerk, has a clue, WP:NOBIGDEAL. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
About RfB
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
Related pages
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: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
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
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.
Footnotes
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors