Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured articles, 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
DreamRimmer	22	11	2	67	Open	10:02, 4 June 2024	4 days, 20 hours	no	report

Current time is 13:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC). —

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
DreamRimmer	22	11	2	67	Open	10:02, 4 June 2024	4 days, 20 hours	no	report

Current time is 13:37, 30 May 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.

There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. Details are still being worked out, but it is approved for one trial run which will likely take place in 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	%
Numberguy6	RfA	Closed per WP:SNOW	27 May 2024	5	23	2	18
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99

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 and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.

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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 13:37:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

if nominations have not updated.

---

DreamRimmer

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (22/11/2); Scheduled to end 10:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

DreamRimmer (talk · contribs) – Hi colleagues, it is my pleasure to present to you DreamRimmer as a candidate for the mop. DreamRimmer is a prolific editor and contributor on this project. Although their tenure is relatively short, they make up for it with strong and consistent contributions in many areas. As an editor, they had written over 20 articles, with one article having been promoted to GA status. They actively give back by assisting their peers. They have reviewed 6 articles that were nominated for GA status. As a New Page Patroller, they have made thousands of reviews of new articles and 130 draft acceptances. At NPP, they demonstrate their ability to organise and promote activities by being a NPP newsletter writer and an organiser of multiple backlog drives, with the recent backlog drive this May. They have shown their knowledge of our policies and guidelines as a global renamer (reaching out to others for second opinions), and have made at least 200 reports at Usernames for administrator attention. They are active at doing anti-vandalism cleanup, with hundreds of reports made at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Their interactions with other editors on their talk page and elsewhere have thus far been cordial and kind. Lastly, they are a technical contributor, having tweaked userscripts and run bots for NPP. With that, I believe that DreamRimmmer will make a strong addition to the janitorial pool. – robertsky (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Co-nomination statement

I'm honoured to co-nominate DreamRimmer for adminship. In addition to content creation (a GA and quite a few articles for the WIR project), they are active in a number of other areas as well, including NPP, UAA and AIV. What I've noticed is that when they see something that needs to be done (and no one else is doing it), they are ready to step up (e.g. the admin newsletter, and a couple of their bot's tasks). Interactions between them and page creators are amicable from what I've seen, and their generous use of WikiLove is something that more NPP reviewers (including me) should emulate. I fully trust that they will delve into the more obscure areas of admining only after gaining enough knowledge of that particular area. Overall, a great candidate for the mop. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination with thanks to both of the nominators. My only alternative account belongs to my bot, BaranBOT. I have never edited for pay. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2024 (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: While doing NPP and anti-vandalism work, I often find myself in situations where having admin tools would help me contribute more effectively. I mostly spend my time at UAA and AIV, where I often see these noticeboards backlogged, and editors doing admin work there always need helpful hands. I also spend some time writing the admin newsletter, where I have noticed a decreasing number of admins, which further motivates me to step up. I would like to assist mainly at the UAA and AIV queues and am also interested in PERM requests, so I can help there as well. I sometimes review edit requests and would like to assist with edit requests for admin-protected pages.

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

A: I'm most proud of my work at New Pages Patrol, where I have coordinated three backlog drives to reduce the growing backlog of unreviewed articles, and I have helped to review over 1000 articles. In addition, I'm also proud of my content work, where I have created over 20 articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and taken Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit to GA status. I am also very happy with my work distributing barnstars every month to top pending changes reviewers, which encourages editors to spend more time reviewing pending changes. My bot, BaranBOT, performs some important tasks that are very tedious to do manually and saves editors time. I coordinated FEB24 for Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, where we successfully cited 14,000 unsourced articles, helping readers verify statements in articles.

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: Because of Wikipedia's collaborative nature, it's impossible to avoid conflicts entirely. I recall a thread where another editor and I disagreed about the notability of an article. I tried to explain my points about why the subject of the article was non-notable, but when we couldn't come to an agreement and the discussion shifted to the notability guidelines and whether to check for notability while reviewing new pages, I didn't feel stressed; rather, I requested a third opinion from an experienced editor. For other discussions, I do the same when I think a third opinion would be helpful. When I run into these types of conflicts in the future, I plan to take a break and spend some time in real life before coming back with a fresh mind, which gives me new energy. I believe polite behavior is also key to reaching mutual decisions and resolving these types of conflicts. Looking back at this conflict, I think I should have acted more politely, as I later learned that one of my replies upset another editor.

---

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.

Optional questions from Idoghor Melody

4. As an admin, it's often expected or requested to help other editors especially new users, by dealing with disputes, either resolving them or pointing the participants to proper venues for resolution and also editors who requests some permissions outside RFP(Rollback,IPBE etc). How do you see yourself in these aspect of an Admin's role?

A: When I was a member of the mentorship program, I assisted new users by answering their questions. I have continued to do so outside of the mentorship program, always trying to help by providing answers in a very simple way. For example, most users ask for help in creating an article, and I redirect them to helpful pages like Help:Your first article while also explaining relevant policies. If an editor is in dispute with another editor, I would try to mediate to find a resolution that satisfies both parties. If this doesn't work, I would direct them to the appropriate dispute resolution venues/avenues, where other experienced editors can offer their opinions. If an editor requests permissions outside of the PERM venue, I will instruct them to make a request at PERM, which is the ideal place for requesting user permissions. In some cases, I would check if the editor meets the criteria and grant them permission. For IPBE requests, I would direct them to the CU team for assistance as they have the technical ability to check IP-related information.

5. Would you block an admin if there's an immediate need to do so, and under what circumstances do you think you'll carry out such a task?

A: Under most normal circumstances, I will not block an admin. If I encounter problematic behavior, I would instead opt to discuss the matter with the administrator involved. If, after discussing the issue, I still believe the action was inappropriate, I would escalate it to various admin action review forums such as the admin noticeboard. The only scenario where I might consider blocking a fellow administrator is if there is suspicion that their account has been compromised. In such a case, if there is any uncertainty about the account's status, I would not take action myself but instead contact the Arbitration Committee to report the situation, allowing them to take appropriate measures such as desysoping. For other circumstances involving an administrator committing a clear violation, such as violating 3RR, engaging in continued wheel warring, or making a gross violation of our no personal attacks guidelines, I would bring in more experienced admins to handle the situation.

Optional question from Folly Mox

6. XTools shows you as being a former admin at awa.wp, with one deletion and one protection in your history there. Can you tell us about your experience at that project?

A: Awa.wp is a small project, and the content there, including project space pages, has not been improved since its creation. It is an Indian language project, and as a local, I have enough knowledge of this language. When I noticed this, I thought about fixing some known basic mistakes and making a few improvements. I was really sad to see zero active editors at the project, so I was happy to make improvements. I protected the main page, deleted a duplicate page, and used AWB to clean up articles. Overall, I was satisfied with my work, as I believe small projects should progress and provide content to the local community that understands that language. I stopped editing and gave up my admin rights there as I am mainly an English Wikipedia contributor, and while editing on enwiki, I have not had enough time to contribute to that project.

Optional question from Giraffer

7. An article that you brought to GA status, Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit, is listed as a translation of the same page on the German Wikipedia, and is largely sourced to material written in German. Your userpage babel does not indicate that you understand German, so how did you write the article?

A: I am from India, and we have 22 (officially recognised) languages here. Since my college days, I have been interested in learning more and more languages. As a result, I currently have a good understanding of over six Indian languages. While traveling to different regions of the world, I took an interest in learning foreign languages and spent time studying them. German was one of them. I can say I have a good understanding of many local and foreign languages, and I can understand and verify text in them, so I haven't had language-related problems while creating this article. The reason for not adding a language babel on my user page is because of its format. If I try to add any more userboxes, it can break the format and hide the background image. However, I have added some information at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers with language specialties.

Optional question from RoySmith

8. There have been a number of cases over the past couple of years where admins have been found to have violated WP:INVOLVED, or been accused of such and it was later determined not to be so. Could you talk about what WP:INVOLVED means and how you would apply it to yourself?

A: I remember a few cases of WP:INVOLVED here, here, and here. WP:INVOLVED, as I understand it, dictates that administrators should refrain from taking administrative actions in situations where they have a significant personal or vested interest. This can arise from prior involvement in editing articles related to a specific topic or from having non-trivial interactions with editors involved. For instance, if I've made substantial contributions to an article, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene administratively in a dispute involving the article. Similarly, if I've had significant interactions with a particular editor, I would refrain from taking any administrative actions involving that individual to maintain impartiality. Despite this, I do recognize that navigating these boundaries can sometimes be tricky, as it's not always obvious where the line in the sand is. As an administrator, I will tend to err on the side of caution and will try to defer to other, less involved administrators in scenarios where my impartiality can be questioned.

Optional question from Spicy

9. I'm looking at sources 2 and 8 in your GA. Source 2 is a collection of letters from the 1800s, published in 1972. This source is cited several times to support statements about a person who lived from 1932 to 2023, including "The marriage ended in divorce in 1973". Source 8 is an article titled "Konventionelle Verfahren zur Wasserstoffherstellung" ("Conventional processes for hydrogen production") in a journal about sustainable energy. It seems exceedingly unlikely that it has anything to do with the claim that In 1988, as part of Emma magazine's PorNO campaign, a legislative proposal aiming to establish a German law against pornography, developed in collaboration with Peschel-Gutzeit, was published; however, it did not get implemented. These sources are not present in the dewiki article, so it would seem that you made the deliberate decision to add them to this biography of a recently deceased person. Can you explain this, please?

A: Thanks for your question, Spicy. I have gone through the article again and re-reviewed the sources that you pointed out. I found out my mistake where I used completely unrelated sources. This is a big error I have made so far and happened because of my workflow when creating articles, researching material, and assessing sources using many tabs in many browser windows. The original sources I wanted to use were part of my research over many days, and I am currently unable to track down them again. Therefore, I have gone ahead and removed these irrelevant sources, along with any unsourced statements. I have found some sources to back up those unreferenced statements, but they are primary sources, so I have removed those statements for now. I have always respected and followed WP:BDP, but these reference additions to the article were unintentional. For posterity's sake: Here is the version which Spicy was referring to before my changes described above. Thank you for the opportunity to be held accountable to the standards that one should follow regardless of being an admin or not. I welcome the question.

Optional question from North8000

10. One thing mentioned is that you are a relatively newer editor in terms of years. From your amount and diversity of activity I'd consider that to be equivalent of many typical years of experience. But is there anything you would say to address those who might have concerns about this?

A: I have been interested in technical work since my school days, and I acquired good knowledge of websites and forums during my college days. Wikipedia was very popular in my college, and Hindi Wikipedia editors organized some workshops there, so Wikipedia is not new to me. During my college days, I used it extensively for my project work and later for searching about other topics. Whenever I visited Wikipedia and noticed any mistakes, I fixed them anonymously, as I could do so. I created my account because I was interested in the MediaWiki software. Later, I used this account to edit English Wikipedia and then went dormant due to real-life work commitments. But now, with free time available, I am here for regular editing. With technical knowledge and having read a lot of project space pages, I did not have any problems contributing here. Additionally, I have asked a lot of questions in Discord servers and still ask whenever I need help, which helps me to learn. I have written about this in depth at Special:Permalink/1212918566#User:DreamRimmer – March 10, 2024 previously. That link contains further details on how I got acquainted with English Wikipedia.

Optional question from Diannaa

11. Hello DreamRimmer and thank you for opening this RFA. My question: I notice you are a member of the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Can you please tell us a bit about the copyright work you have done so far?

A: Thanks for your question, Diannaa. As part of the NPP standard review process, I have checked for copyright violations in articles before marking them as reviewed. This was with help from the Earwig and CopyPatrol tools, which assisted me in the process. During my work at NPP, I have come across copyright violations in many articles where I removed copyrighted material and requested revdel of those revisions. I have made over 25 revdel requests and marked a few pages (that were complete copyright violations) for deletion under G12. I have also encountered some copied materials, which were WP:BACKWARDSCOPY, and I added the {{backwardscopy}} template on the talk pages of those articles to identify Wikipedia as the original source. Some were copied from public domains, so I did not take any action on them. Since I was actively involved in this copyright cleanup, I joined the Wikiproject to learn more.

Optional question from Carrite

12. I see on your user page that you describe yourself as having a 4/5 level knowledge of the Turkish language. How did you learn Turkish? Are there any examples of articles you have translated from Turkish-WP to English-WP?

A: I'd say my knowledge of Turkish is close to TR-4. I worked in Turkey for a few years, where I learned it, although I had a very basic understanding of Turkish before my journey to this country. I haven't translated any articles from Turkish to English yet, but it's on my to-do list.

13. - Did you edit English Wikipedia prior to July 4, 2021?

A: Yes, I edited Wikipedia anonymously before creating an account in 2021. I've shared more details about my journey in my response to Q10.

Optional question from GreenLipstickLesbian

14. What is your interpretation of the attribution policy when it relates to copying from public-domain sources, and what actions do you take when you find violations of it in your NPP work?

A: The attribution policy on Wikipedia requires editors to properly credit sources when copying from public-domain sources. This is typically done using citations and specific templates like {{source-attribution}}. In my NPP work, I haven't encountered any violations of this policy. When I do find a violation, my first step will be to verify that the source is indeed in the public domain or released under a compatible license, as this is often a point of confusion for many editors. If a violation is confirmed, I will add the appropriate attribution template myself and leave a friendly note on the user's talk page. In my case, most of the copyright-related questions I asked in the Discord server were met with varied opinions and suggestions. When I realized that some of my creations were not attributed properly, I tried to rectify this by adding the attribution template, though I now understand that simply using a template does not suffice. I encountered many different opinions about copyright policy, which led to my initial misunderstanding of this policy. From now, I will make sure to attribute translations in edit summaries of these articles.

Optional question from Cremastra

15.Thanks for standing for adminship. Here's a hypothetical situation: it's some time in the future, and you're a fairly experienced administrator. You check WP:AFD, and you see there's an old discussion with minimal participation that's been relisted twice. One person wants to delete the article, saying although there are many sources here, (and I'm not doubting their reliability), there isn't enough significant coverage—in fact, most of the sources are just databases! Delete this article per WP:SIGCOV. The other participant wants to keep the article, saying Although no individual source has detailed coverage, and many are databases, there is clearly enough information out there to write an article, since this article is well-sourced and is moderately long (two sections, about 150 words). Keep per WP:IAR and the spirit of WP:N. What do you do? Do you

• a) relist the discussion for a third time;
• b) close the discussion as "no consensus" (de facto keep);
• c) close as "delete"; or
• d) close as "keep"?

A: This is a hypothetical scenario, and I'll preface my answer by noting that in a real situation, I would have more information about the topic, allowing for a more informed judgment. Given the scenario described, I would start by evaluating the comments in the discussion. The first !vote raises valid points, explaining why the hypothetical article does not meet our standards of notability, citing the relevant policies and questioning the significance of the sources. The second participant argues for keeping the article, primarily based on the article's length and the presence of many sources, although many of these sources are databases. This argument, however, is one of the classic arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion and also fails to address the indiscriminate nature of databases as sources, as outlined in indiscriminate in what they cover. Given the minimal participation and the strength of the arguments for deletion, I would lean towards closing the discussion as "soft delete". If the topic is one that has traditionally garnered significant attention from editors, I might also consider relist the discussion for a third time to encourage more participation.

Optional question from NYC Guru

16. Under what circumstances would you block a new editor indef?

A: There are some circumstances where I would block a new editor: if there are CIR issues, if they are involved in NOTHERE activities like using account exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism, or if they are an obvious sock quacking like ducks. I would also impose an indefinite block if they are using their account only for promotional activities. Other circumstances warranting a block include if their username violates the username policy, although this block can be hard or soft depending on the nature of the account name. Continuous activities such as vandalism, gross incivility, and harassment also warrant an indefinite block after enough warnings.

Optional question from Andrew D.

17. Please explain the meaning or significance of the account name DreamRimmer. FYI, to me it suggests a reference to Arnold Rimmer.

A: DreamRimmer isn't a standard word or term. I used it because I wanted to choose my name with a common word like 'Dream', but it was already taken, so I went with 'DreamRimmer'. It is not related to any person or fictional character. By the way, in my local language, 'Rimmer' means 'Nomad', so for me, it means 'One who walks in dreams'.

Optional question from Serial Number 54129

18. Thanks for standing under this new process! A greater brain than me (possibly absent from these current proceedings except in spirit) posits, per your response to Andrew D's question above, that where you say "in my local language", it would be interesting to know what that local language is. After all, if you've got it, flaunt it  :)

A: This is a dialect of the Hindi language spoken in the Indian region where I am from. I don't want to be more specific as that would disclose personal information about me.

Optional question from GRuban

19. This is kind of a WP:IAR question; it's not really a question, more presenting a potentially Wikipedia-stressful situation and seeing how you respond. So technically you could refuse to answer it. This would, in itself, be a valuable answer. Anyway, I read your nomination, thought this is a great candidate, and may well support regardless of your answer, but then I read the Good Article, Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit. And, um, well, er ... it's not actually bad, it just reads like it was written by a non-native English speaker, and/or by automatic translation from another language. More specific details - they can all be fixed, thank goodness, but there are not one or two of them, there are many. I also see the article image has been nominated for deletion; not by me, but I am afraid it is sort of kind of the same neighborhood. So um - your response? To this not-quite question? --GRuban (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Optional question from JPxG

20. There are a few opposes. If there's anything you would like to say in response to them, this question is a free-form zone to do so (or not, as the case may be).

A:

Discussion

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

---

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

Support

1. Has a clue, been active in the right areas, decent answers to the questions and no red flags. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Net positive, has the experience, willing to learn. Toadspike [Talk] 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Great experience + great edits + great answers = great admin. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Net-positive, so far. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
5. Support Net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
6. Support as co-nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
7. Support as co-nom. – robertsky (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
8. Support per answers to questsions and experience. NYC Guru (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
9. Support Toadette^Edit! 10:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
10. One day people will realize content editing is mostly irrelevant to admin work. Mach61 10:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
11. Based on the awnsers given I'm seeing an editor who has both technical skill and an ability to Remember The Human which is essential for many admin actions. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
12. Support Helpful. Lionel Cristiano^? 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
13. Support: As I said, I have known DreamRimmer since I began editing Wikipedia. They are experienced and a good candidate for RFC. They should be an admin. DR’s work in Indian cinema and other projects has made a good impression on me. I would like to see DR as an admin. Thanks for the nomination. GrabUp - Talk 10:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
14. Support per both noms. Prolific editor with good track record. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
15. Support: content creation is not relevant to how an admin will do their job. I see no communication issues here, DR is fluent in English. They are are competent, respectful, and have experience administrating things in NPP. They have technical skill and are careful. The WP:V issues Spicy pointed out below are concerning to me, there's really only one actual incident there, apart from some bad advice given to them early on. They're willing to learn, and, provided, in my opinion, they stay away from German translation for a while, they'll make a good sysop. Administrators are supposed to help delete articles, block users, and perform administrative actions, with competence and kindness, qualities which DR has clearly demonstrated. They're not supposed to be The perfect Wikipedian™, and isolated incidents should not disqualify them from getting the mop. Cremastra (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
16. Support per nominating statements, answers to the first few questions, and previous interactions in backlog drives. Rocfan275 (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
17. Support. I've worked with DreamRimmer on NPP activities (we're both coordinators). They're very helpful, updating the backlog graph manually every week, managing backlog drives, and helping with the newsletter. My impression of DreamRimmer is that they are a hard worker and are likely to become a backlog crusher admin, which is great. DreamRimmer is also good about asking questions when in doubt, a great trait for an admin. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
18. Support Absolutely a net positive and great to see someone from NPP stepping forward Josey Wales ^Parley 12:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
19. Support per my general comment. Queen of Hearts (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
20. Support User-friendly and helpful. —MdsShakil (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
21. Support Everything checks out. I don't see anything wrong. Mox Eden (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
22. Net positive, seems friendly and pleasent enough, has demonstrated competence, the ability to learn and some need/use for the tools. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I wasn't going to vote at all on this one, as it seemed unnecessary given the strength of support visible in the pre-vote discussion, but I'm highly unimpressed by the issues that have come up concerning the GA, apparently a not very good tickbox effort based on a machine translation. DR felt obliged to remove much of the odder referencing when challenged (it's doubtful if what remains is a GA at all, if indeed it ever should have been), not to mention the failure to attribute correctly (unacceptable in an NPP-er). What worries me here is not so much the lacklustre article itself as the unfortunate appearance of disingenuousness, rightly or wrongly, and that is a red flag. Ingratis (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Oppose. The candidate created a number (20+) of articles in late November, mostly German BLPs translated from dewiki, but did not attribute them as translations until nearly three months later, in February. One of these articles was taken to GA, but has some concerning sourcing problems (as asked about by Spicy and GRuban) including German-language sources being cited repeatedly for statements they were completely unrelated to—given that they edited the article on six separate occasions and failed to spot this, I am not convinced by the candidate's answer to my question. At any rate, a robust understanding of attribution/copyright and text-source integrity is paramount to NPP work, and I do not feel like the candidate has demonstrated this.
   I'm also concerned about the speed with which they are trying to acquire rights and responsibilities. In just a year they've picked up PCR, rollbacker, NPR, autopatrolled, and MMS. They've also taken on the role of an NPP coordinator, gotten global renamer permissions on Meta, and unsuccessfully applied to become an SPI clerk. The enthusiasm is appreciated, but they are making too many mistakes too quickly, and I am not comfortable with them being made an administrator. Giraffer (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
3. Oppose - Way too many red flags here. It's hard to reconcile the candidate's answers to Q7 and Q9: apparently, they speak German well enough to competently translate an article, but not well enough to realize that the title "Konventionelle Verfahren zur Wasserstoffherstellung", CO2 und CO – Nachhaltige Kohlenstoffquellen für die Kreislaufwirtschaft" has nothing to do with feminist activism, or that a source they cited four times is entirely unrelated to the subject. While examining the candidate’s contributions, I found another GA review that was failed for similar issues with source-text integrity: Talk:Barritus#GA_Review. DreamRimmer responded quite poorly to the reviewer's criticism, stating This is completely unfair; you just failed this nomination without any logical reason. There was also the issue recently brought up at ORCP where they were closely paraphrasing from IMDB and citing sources that failed verification, to which they responded In my early days, when I asked a question about copyright violation in the Discord channel, an admin advised me that we can copy a maximum of fifteen words (too many things wrong with this to list).
   These issues would be concerning for any candidate, but for someone who wants to engage with copyright and NPP in an administrative capacity, they are disqualifying. I'm frankly not sure if I'm comfortable with this editor holding NPR rights, let alone adminship, and my impression of their very prolific editing is that it is overly geared towards ticking boxes to receive user rights and topicons rather than improving the encyclopedia for its own sake (leading to such situations as trying to push sub-par articles with bogus sources through GA). Spicy (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
4. Mainly per Spicy: "Too many red flags". The language thing (not the username) is opaque, and either their inability or unwillingness to recognize CP or the importance of ATT in translating articles is worrying. An unwillingness to follow V—one of our most basic policies—is also troubling. It's a shame, as I wanted to support a candidate in the new process, but that cannot be today. Ultimately there's too many issues of trust, and few of them can be dismissed as minor. ——Serial Number 54129 10:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

   Tempted, now, to change to stronger (not yet "strong"!) oppose, per Hammersoft's comment. The candidate is clearly a hat collector extraordinaire: the ORCP makes bizarre reading. Almost everyone tells the candidate to wait a while, he says he is standing in six months, and ends up ignoring everyone and breaking his own word. I would be interested to hear what Novem Linguae says, as they also took full part in that discussion. The shame of it is that—pace the current nominators—if the candidate had waited for Hammersoft and Novem to sponsor them, while it would have been delayed a few months, the result would have been a dead cert and a much easier journey. ——Serial Number 54129 13:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

5. Oppose - per my comments below. This is a WP:NOTYET situation for me - if the candidate can come back in six months or a year with some original content creation under their belt, and also demonstrate that they've learned from some of the issues I'm seeing raised in the oppose !votes above this one, for example attribution and translation, then I'll be happy to support. And please don't be disheartened by this; RFAs are of course extremely stressful, but you're still relatively new to Wikipedia DreamRimmer, and there's plenty of time, no deadline. This isn't that you've done anything very wrong in my view, just I'd like to see a bit more. It took me 10 years of editing before I got the mop and I'm sure you'll become an admin way earlier than that, whether or not this particular run succeeds! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
6. Oppose along with Giraffer and Spicy. "Red flags" is a good description of how i see it; perhaps at some future point, but at the moment the language and CP issues are a step too far. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Per Spicy. A lot of concerning issues regarding translation as well as other concerning copyright. If these issues can be addressed a few months from now, I would support. Lynch44 (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

   @Lynch44: Please, what are these "concerning issues" around NPP? Cremastra (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

   Misread, sorry. I was thinking of something different. Lynch44 (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

8. Oppose the discussion cited in Q3 (and copied onto the talk page of this RfA) does not reflect well on the candidate's ability to listen instead of simply talking past another editor. What is especially troubling is that the candidate evidently considers that interaction to be a good example of how they handle conflict. To me, that's a deal-breaker even without the other issues raised by the above opposes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
9. Oppose This candidate approached me about possibly nominating them for RfA. I began my review. Before I even began, I advised the candidate "do not be in a rush to get your RfA posted". I gave them some homework to do as I began my review, in particular to read this, this, and that (the standard guides). I also advised them to read through the last several RfAs, and consider how they would answer the questions on them. When I began my review, I had the same concerns Giraffer voices above about the rapidity with which they've added rights and responsibilities. Hat collecting isn't a red flag in and of itself, but it was an early concern. As I got into the review, I decided not to nominate them. That's not because anything leapt out that was wrong, but rather a major caution of NOTYET concerns that !voters would have. I advised them to wait until March of 2025, which would be two years under their belt. 18 hours later, their RfA went live. I was stunned. I also note that at their ORCP in March, they indicated a desire to run in six months. It's been two. Concerns were raised about NOTYET in the ORCP, but they were ignored. This candidate is in a serious rush to become an administrator. This isn't something you rush into. Several people advised DR to wait, but they pressed ahead anyway. This also speaks to an inability to listen, along with other issues highlighted by others above including Spicy, Ingratis, and Lepricavark. This candidacy isn't just a NOTYET situation. It's deeper than that. DreamRimmer, you're doing some great work, but please onboard the advice from ORCP and this RfA before trying again. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
10. Oppose per lack of attribution on translated articles, poor choices on referencing translated articles, and a highly-subjective vibe that the answers are an attempt to say what we want to hear. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
11. Oppose because of what has been described above about the candidate's GA submission. I used to question why GA work is required form a candidate. I understand now. Maproom (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral, while there are indeed some issues with the GA, content shouldn't be a wp:nobigdeal-breaker for adminship, and I have confidence in the candidate's capabilities. However, I still have concerns that these content issues underlie larger misunderstandings of copyright issues and attribution, and a lack of patience for verification of sources, all things that would be needed in domains like NPP. I'm hopeful they can learn, but I don't think I can confidently support right now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2. Neutral – I see the community's red flags, however I'd rather not conflate content creation and the ability to use tools properly. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• Very descent AfD participation outcomes, good track record at NPP and UAA. conversations this user has been involved in are pretty descent and polite. Overall, net-positive. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Polite, Experienced, I have known him since the beginning of my time on Wikipedia. His participation in AfD is positive, and I haven’t found any problematic issues that would make me oppose him. His contributions to AfCs, NPP, and primarily Indian Cinema articles have made a good impression. GrabUp - Talk 10:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I've had nothing but positive interaction with DR. I've seen them take on a active role in helping out with tasks related to coordinating the new page patrol project as well as seen them work on increasingly complex technical tasks. Based on my previous interactions, I'm pretty confident that they are up for the task of becoming a administrator. I'm looking to support this RFA once the voting phase opens up. Sohom (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
•  Bureaucrat note: the intention of this initial discussion period (based on the original RFC and the voluminous ongoing discussions at WT:RFA) is not to indicate pre-votes, but rather to discuss any potential concerns to avoid a "bombshell" suddenly tanking an otherwise potentially successful RfA. General comments indicating support or opposition ideally should be saved for the voting period. Primefac (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal and resulting summary of consensus did not limit the scope of comments to potential concerns. It said that no comments indicating "support", "oppose", or "neutral" ... may be made. Commenters are free to discuss positive characteristics and behaviour of the candidate. Each commenter isn't obliged to provide a full evaluation, and so they can ultimately provide their support or opposition based on the sum total of everything that was presented and any subsequent analysis they performed. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then what is the point of this discussion period? I am confused. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Usernamekiran: As far as I can tell, the discussion period is for assessing the candidate and discussing positive and negative aspects of the candidate, and the voting period is when people can place explicit votes for or against the candidate. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It seems like the main substantive effect of the discussion period is to prevent the minor embarrassment of making an early support !vote only for some scandalous controversy to be revealed. In theory, perhaps this also could make oppose comments and !votes less polemical, since they're not being aimed at a wall of supports; it's not clear that this is borne out in practice. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  As with any decision-making process, having a discussion about pros and cons while remaining open to the decision outcome places a greater focus on examining the discussion points. Participants aren't locked in by a committed position and thus feel a need to frame all of their comments with this in mind. isaacl (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• DreamRimmer is a name I see often, and always positively. An excellent candidate for adminship I think! GraziePrego (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I've had a number of positive experiences with DreamRimmer in my time on-wiki and, specifically, in NPP. They show a willingness to learn, they gracefully accept criticism, and they seek help when they feel they are out of their element. These are all great qualities and I've enjoyed watching them grow as a contributor. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Per the crat note, not sure if I'm allowed to say something to the effect of "hell yeah dude" -- let me know if this is an inappropriate comment. jp×g🗯️ 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  From my reading of the discussions it is less that people think comments like these are "inappropriate" so much as "unnecessary"; this part of the process should not be a mini-ORCP to pre-gauge the chances of success. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  While that's my read of the intention... I think trying to limit comments to discussing "potential concerns" at this point would lead to a skewed poll "result" - if positive sentiments are discouraged, and only negatives/concerns are brought up. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  "No potential concerns" and "I disagree that's a concern" are examples of non-negative comments that also aren't expressions of how one plans to vote. And if one has nothing to say beyond "hell yeah," then there's always the option of simply not saying anything at all and just voting when the voting opens. The discussion period does not need to be filled with discussion. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think what PS is saying is that the discussion period will be filled with discussion, and if that discussion is entirely critical, this process harms candidates' chances. Trying to get Wikipedians to not fill the discussion space is impossible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  True, tho as isaacl says above, it's also ok to say good things about a candidate. "Hell yeah because [positives]..." Levivich (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ha, I somewhat echo this concern/question. Besides responding to a non-nominee's comment below, for the first time during the trial of this new process, I genuinely have nothing to say ... which can/should be taken as a good sign for this candidate. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• My initial take on this is that while DreamRimmer has done lots of good work, and amassed an impressive edit count in a short period of time, I'm notseeing that they have sufficient content-creation experience to be given the mop just yet... I know opinion is divided on this, but my view is that personal knowledge and experience of life at the coal face is essential for admins, even for those who intend to work primarily in other areas. Their sole GA is at Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit which, as noted in Q7, is an almost verbatim copy of the German article. (And as an aside, it appears that page was created as a copy of the German without any sort of attribution of the de-wiki version, which is a violation of the stipulations for WP:COPYWITHIN). Other pages such as Barritus seem to also be copies of de-wiki articles too. For me this is probably a WP:NOTYET, with likely support if the candidate comes back in a few months with some original content creation under their belt. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Side note.....I don't think that GA is an indicator of content-creation. Going for it is something that some content creators do and some don't. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. At least this editor is attempting to add material to the English Wikipedia, which is more than I can say about many others. Steel1943 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I did a lot of GA reviews but only did one GA, and even that was just because I wanted to take it through FA and then on the front page (the Fitz) North8000 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this on two counts. First, "GA isn't an indicator" implies lots of content-creation that simply hasn't gone through GA, but that's not the case here. As far as I can tell, the GA was DreamRimmer's largest content project as an editor. Second, there's absolutely a difference between content creators who have their work reviewed versus those who don't. Unreviewed content-creation is how bad practices are cemented and good ones go unlearned. People who regularly go through GA, FA, or PR aren't just going to have more polished articles, but they're going to have a better fundamental understanding of how to write for Wikipedia than those who don't. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

DreamRimmer did add the translation template to the talk page though, if that alleviates some concerns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

They added it several months later, however-and without making it clear which edits were their own writing and which were derivative works of the deWiki article. The retroactive translation template alleviates some concerns, but you're meant to use an edit summary for the original attribution. Without that attribution, it's iffy as per WP:TFOLWP. Given that they did the exact same thing on multiple articles, then mass-added the translation attempts on 2024-02-12 instead of a dummy edit, I'm not sure this is an area of policy they know much about. I'll wait to see their answer to my PD copying question before I make judgement, however. Obviously it worries me when an experienced NPP patroller doesn't seem to understand our attribution rules, especially one running for admin on the bases of their skill there, but we all have policy blind spots and make mistakes. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As a newbie Wikipedian (in the sense that I have not really been active on Wikipedia until a couple of days ago) I may be completely edit: off the mark, but I have been seeing many a mention of administrative backlogs in the short time I have been trundling through these pages. In my opinion, the English Wikipedia is extremely well-stocked and expectations of years-long contributions to articles seem to be absurdly high.

Yes, everybody can find their niche on Wikipedia, because the world is filled with knowledge, and contribute with their knowledge, but not everybody is good at writing articles from scratch, or interested in that, or confident in sourcing satisfactory references, etc. However, this editor seems, according to endorsements from others and their own answers to questions, to be contented with helping out more on the administrative side of things, and is reported as doing a good job of it.

In light of these facts and the reported significant backlogs, is it not prudent to give preponderance to an editor’s administrative and communicative capabilities, rather than their (allegedly wanting) prowess in generating great articles and creating content? After all, article generation is not the primary job description of an administrator (note that I do agree that some content creation experience should be a minimum/desirable requirement, since it is Wikipedia’s modus operandi). –Konanen (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

^^ Agree with this. We are approaching the point where picky voting wrecks the project. Toadspike [Talk] 17:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This is what I noticed as well. I wouldn't say content alone is enough to push me toward an oppose, but I find it confusing that the nominators are presenting this as a content-creator nomination for someone who doesn't focus on content-creation. The GA just meets the bare minimum: it's about 700 words, mostly proseline, and as you pointed out, a translation that doesn't require much original content writing. I don't know if I would have passed it as written if I had been the reviewer. The bulk of DreamRimmer's non-GA content is 200–400 word articles. Those are valuable contributions, but that's not much to prove content-creation expertise; with a cup of coffee you could write a few of those in an afternoon. 88.1% of their mainspace edits are semi-automated, which brings their non-automated mainspace edits down to just under 2,000. DreamRimmer has attributes that would benefit the admin team, but these talents are in behind the scenes areas like NPP and anti-vandalism, which is probably what this RfA should emphasize given that's where they'd be most likely to focus as an admin. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't read the nomination as a content-creator forward nomination, content is one of the many facets mentioned in the nominations. The nominations also mentions bots, NPP coordination work amongst things DR has done. I think DR's main strength is his work at NPP and AV as he pretty clearly outlines in the first question. Sohom (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not a purely content-creation focused nomination, but both co-nominators list content creation first of all of the candidate's qualities. That's not not a content-creation forward nomination. Both co-nominators and the candidate themselves specifically mention their GA, and like Thebiguglyalien I raised an eyebrow after looking at the article in question. I haven't dug into the other facets of the candidate mentioned in the nomination statements, but they seem like more compelling reasons than DreamRimmer's content creation work to support their RfA, and it seems weird to me that it's the content creation which is given such a prominent place. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Not to try to convince you or anything, but I've pondered something since my RfA. Do you consider NPP work to contribute towards the content work that many seek in order to support an RfA? I did have some people at my RfA who wanted more content creation experience, several others countered with my NPP work as evidence of experience. I'm curious how wide spread this belief is and whether you would consider that in an evaluation of someone's content-related experience. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh I can only speak for myself, but I would make a distinction between "basic" criteria (notability, reliable sources, copyvio, writing coherently) versus "advanced" criteria (well written, strong understanding of content P&G, familiarity with best practices). NPP is good experience for understanding basic criteria, which I'd say is more important for adminship. If someone wants to focus in areas where they're in closer contact with content and would benefit from understanding advanced criteria, there's no substitute for content-writing experience and receiving feedback on said writing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think content creation is different than NPP work. NPP is more on the maintenance/polishing/checking side of things, I think, rather than the writing side. It is my impression that successful RFA candidates usually need both content creation and article maintenance tasks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for the note Hey man im josh I think my view is similar to that of Novem and Thebiguglyalien above. NPP work is very valuable, certainly, but on its own I wouldn't see it as evidence that the candidate necessarily "gets" life as a content editor. In fact, I'd have thought having a decent chunk of content creation under your belt would also be something of a prerequisite for NPP too. After all, it must be quite difficult to judge other people's contributions against policy, ensuring that referencing, attribution, NPOV etc. are all up to scratch if you have never really done it yourself? I have been fairly consistent over the years in opposing candidates at RFA who don't have at least a basic portfolio of content work (that doesn't have to be GAs or FAs, just original prose), and I will likely continue that here.

And to answer Konanen's point, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. We write material ourselves, and we self-police. That means that first and foremost, we are editors and writers. Now of course, there are many who prefer the "administrative" side of things - blocking, protecting, deleting, contributing to the incident boards, all that stuff, and that's essential work too. But I, and many others before me, have been consistent in the view that even those editors must have demonstrated some proficiency in how content creation works too. It's simply that you can't be an effective "policeman" or "janitor" on the project if you don't know or haven't experienced how the fundamental bread-and-butter of said project works.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I do agree with your point that editors must have demonstrated some proficiency in how content creation works as I have also stated in my comment further above, but imo, the operating word here is some, and most editors who oppose RfAs on grounds of missing content creation make it out to be the #1 quality that has to outshine all other qualities, which surprises me.
I think it is quite detrimental to the process and to potential candidates that there are no minimal standards that everybody else can measure themselves against and work towards, because it leads to completely unrealistic and subjective expectations of the amount of contribution that any candidate for administratorship has to meet. Admittedly, I have only experienced two RfAs in real-time, but I have read through a few other recent RfA logs, and I kept seeing WP:NOTYET oppositions because the candidate did not have [insert arbitrary number or “enough” sans explanation] new content that are [insert arbitrary content quality level]. I apologise for this entire comment veering into a tangent, but it seems relevant to this and other RfAs: in the Request for Adminship review procedures, I have seen objections to setting minimum standards for administratorship because we do not want to exclude good candidates who only want to do admin work on grounds of numbers, but I would argue that this may already be the case due to some intangible, undefined (and, thus, unchallengeable) sense of [righteousness, is that the word I am looking for?] when it comes to numbers of content creation that really should not be as extremely in focus as some editors make them out to be. Even half of the WP:NOTYET page’s examples of this type of opposition to RfAs are about content creation and level of content quality.
Anyway, this has little to do with the RfA at hand, and I have admittedly been agonising over whether to post this or not, but I think the answer is warranted. LMK if this was out of order. –Konanen (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the GA closely. The English version says "Peschel-Gutzeit was born in Hamburg as the daughter of a teacher and a major general." while the German version says "Peschel-Gutzeit wurde als Tochter eines aus Gera stammenden, promovierten Volkswirtes und einer Lehrerin in Hamburg geboren" (Peschel-Gutzeit was born in Hamburg as the daughter of a Gera-born economist with a doctorate and a teacher.)

This issue of the biological father (the economist) vs adoptive father (the general) was thrashed out in discussion at the German article in 2021. The point was queried in the English GA review in 2023 but the candidate seems to have got this wrong. Confusion arises because the subject did not acknowledge her biological father and so many sources just give the adoptive father. The German editors seem to have got to the bottom of this by consulting the official birth record, but the candidate did not follow their discussion and finding. As this was a red flag issue, they ought have been more careful and thorough. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Extended content

They really only started editing in March 2023 so just over one year ago. The earliest edits demonstrate a proficiency: reverting, reporting, installing scripts, and adding deletion sorting to AfDs. This was all in March 2023. So I am wondering if the user had a previous account. Above they indicate no other account. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) @Lightburst: Assume good faith. It is more likely that they simply read about the different policies and features before editing, rather than assuming that DreamRimmer is a sockpuppet. We have tons of pages documenting this stuff, so it isn't unreasonable that a new editor might have read some of them before they started. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Bureaucrats, it seems we have a test case for proposal 9b. Sdkb talk 15:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC) These edits are easy to find. I did not know that I was calling out a policy violation that needed diffs, but if you want diffs, around the 35th edit a revert. Same month reporting a user name, reporting a vanda. Installed a script, deletion sorting. All of these edits are in the first 150. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Yes, they did those things. That does not mean they are a sockpuppet. I made an RFPP report in my first 100 edits, does that make me a sockpuppet? Is it that hard to believe that a new editor might read a few of the 1000s of pages in projectspace detailing every little thing on the site? Please assume good faith. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC) It's quite an indictment of the state of our guidance pages that anyone might consider the ability to comprehend them suspicious. Sdkb talk 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC) @Sdkb: To be fair, there are so many policies, guidelines, abbreviations, and references to things to sort through as newbie Wikipedian, I think an indictment of them would not go amiss. And I think anyone who manages to apply them, and learns to apply them well in such a short time, deserves the approval on their RfA. –Konanen (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Within my first 150, I had done all of the following: reverts, DYK noms, nommed an article for GA, promoted someone else's abandoned GAN... yea DR's precocious but that could just be from previous IP editing and lurking around the backrooms. Also, all of what you pointed out are semi-automated edits, so they could've just really liked scripts. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 16:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC) @Lightburst Oh please, I am, as a matter of fact, not surprised of this comment. There’s nothing too hard about Wikipedia’s ins and outs to not be able to learn within a short time. By the way, DreamRimmer clear narrated his Wikipedia journey right on this page, but it is only quite disappointing, with all due respect, to think a proficient and efficient editor like this is a sockpuppet. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Have you read the crat note about the purpose of this discussion? I will not comment further here until the vote, WP:COAL seems best so I have already exceeded that after being called out for missing diffs. Lightburst (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC) @Sdkb: you're an admin; you're well within your rights to action actionable behavior, if you wish :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC) So I am wondering if the user had a previous account. Then why not outright ask, like Carrite did, instead of casting aspersions? –FlyingAce✈hello 14:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) It's not neccesary to ask. Their comments imply that the candidate is lying. As part of the nomination, the candidate is required to disclose any other accounts, and they did.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) As someone who participated in the responses the last two times Lightburst disrupted RFA like this, I'm honestly glad they're back at it and I sincerely ask people to stop piling on. WP:RFA2024 is ongoing but that doesn't mean it's not actionable: Proposal 9b, linked above by Sdkb, has passed because it achieved, as ToadetteEdit said in their closing rationale, "Clear consensus to require diffs for claims of specific policy violations." This behavior is now bright-line forbidden by policy. It will get a response because anything, from banning Lightburst until the end of time to nothing at all, will show how seriously bureaucrats and administrators plan to take the huge amount of good work done by dozens of editors over the past three-plus months at RFA2024. City of Silver 00:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I provided diffs above to show that the candidate demonstrated a proficiency which IMO, was not commensurate with their status as a new editor (March 2023). Did you miss the diffs? This discussion is, as Primefac said, "to discuss any potential concerns to avoid a "bombshell" suddenly tanking an otherwise potentially successful RfA". I participated here by adding my concern. If you do not share my concern - please move on. When I do not share your concern I will not call for your ouster. FTR, I do not disrupt RFAs... disruption comes from others blocking, banning, striking, badgering, hatting, erasing and accusing. So this new system is probably not the answer because voting has not even started and you are already waving the sword of Damocles. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) (People! Listen! I know we're all waiting for evidence that the nominee might be a sockpuppet even though Lightburst apparently is going to provide nothing more than a collection of random links that, separately or collectively, carry not even the faintest whiff of wrongdoing. But we mustn't pile on! We have to encourage this! LB really is going to keep going!) City of Silver 01:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Perhaps you might try a less disruptive means of drawing attention to Lightburst's disruptive behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC) I'm using these means, and I'm absolutely dead serious, to try to prevent the harm this community will suffer if Lightburst can no longer contribute at RFA. I can't be "less disruptive" when I haven't been disruptive to start. City of Silver 03:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Sure, that's entirely believable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) @Lepricavark: If I thought you were a liar, I'd call you a liar. I'd use that exact word: "liar," and I'd ping you so there's no confusion. You think I'm a liar but won't say so. This community would be such a better place if more people were as unafraid as I am to say what's on their minds. (If it's not clear, I don't think you're a liar.) City of Silver 04:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Spicy, regarding Question 9, it's worth noting that the GA review was in November 2023. I don't know if you're aware, but the lead sentence of WP:BDP at the time read Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources (emphasis retained). While the gist of your question remains, it's worth noting that BDP changed significantly two months later. What is justifiable under the previous wording may not be under the current wording you link to (whether or not it is justifiable under either I leave for DreamRimmer to answer). Sincerely, Dilettante 18:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The text you quote from WP:BDP is still in the current revision of the policy. The BDP text has changed since the November 2023 version, strengthening it somewhat, but that particular line is unchanged. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

    Copied the wrong sentence. Sincerely, Dilettante 04:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is indeed weird to use letters of Heinrich Heine, who died in 1856, as sources for facts about Lore Maria Peschel-Gutzeit, a person born in 1932. It might be OK for facts about their family, which is the first use of the source (but we're really stretching here: the letter "An Julius Campe in Hamburg" is dated 1847), but other three instances are for facts during Peschel-Gutzeit's life. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not saying it isn't weird. Sincerely, Dilettante 04:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Note: I have copied the contents of the thread referenced in Q3 to this nomination's talk page so that non-admins can review them. Sdkb ^talk 19:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Clarification on Q3's answer, which is completely misleading: I disagreed on articles being reviewed only if they are notable, not 'about the notability of an article'. My replies clearly indicated that there was a workaround to review articles if they have a "credible claim of importance or significance", but DreamRimmer wanted a third opinion (3O). The point being, even after many editors from the ORCP discussion acknowledged the workaround, DreamRimmer has mentioned here that the disagreement was about the article's notability.

More than being upset, I was/am disappointed that you were/are so stubborn that you couldn't acknowledge the workaround and felt the need to bring up my trail NPP to subtly indicate my inexperience, while the other editors from the ORCP discussion understood the NPP flowchart in no time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the answer to Q3 doesn't seem to accurately portray what happened in that discussion. It's great that the candidate didn't feel stressed by the disagreement, but I wouldn't be surprised if you did. We all know how it feels when someone talks past us, and it sure looks like that's what DreamRimmer was doing in that thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jeraxmoira Hi there. So, I will try to tailor this reply to the discussion Sdkb helped resurrect, comments by you two, and DR's answer to Q3. Firstly, I do not see how his answer to Q3 is "completely misleading", following the discussion. I, as a matter of fact, saw that discussion back in January but decided to not participate because Joe Roe already intervened. I think you made statements that are a bit concerning for me as a member of the NPP group (even though on trial). You said Any article about a BLP that has few or no references but has a 'credible claim of importance or significance' can be tagged as unreferenced or for more citations, I want to believe this was based on the flowchart (which I personally never consulted and will never unless it is somehow updated). What is a "credible claim of importance" by the way? For me, a credible claim of importance is when an article (for example, the article in question here) says "Ashok Attri is a diplomat" or "Ashok Attri is India's ambassador to Denmark and Oman", this is definitely a credible claim of importance which disqualifies it from being tagged with A7, 9 or 11 speedy deletion templates, but are diplomats or ambassadors presumptively notable under any WP:SNG? They are not. Does this subject, in particular, passes WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or at least even WP:ANYBIO? If they do not meet any of these, I personally do not see any reason why any reviewer should mark such an article as reviewed. This is my own understanding and this is how I personal review articles, for example, about BLPs, it could also very much apply to anything else. Credible claim of importance is only used if you want to speedy the article, if it has, then you should not tag, if it doesn't have, then you should tag. This is the reason I have nominated a lot of articles for deletion since the May backlog reduction drive started. I'd also love to echo Joe's statement that, this might differ if you're dealing with a subject of "undetermined notability".

Now, DreamRimmer is honestly correct in his statements in that discussion except that he unreviewed the article, because if I was the one, I would have nominated it for deletion based on my explanation above, straight up. After all, WP:NPP says that any article nominated for deletion (not WP:PROD), can be marked as reviewed. They were not wrong for seeking third opinion, you were not wrong for pinging your NPR provider, the overall author of confusion there was the NPP flowchart.

I'd like to reiterate that, in a real sense, WP:CCS which is just an essay, is not entirely relevant in determining the notability of a subject. WP:N is the bedrock of inclusion on Wikipedia and that must be maintained. Even WP:NPP clearly says Unless an article falls under what Wikipedia is not or the speedy deletion criteria, notability is the main test for determining whether or not it can exist.

In a nutshell, I'd say I disagree with your statement that Clarification on Q3's answer, which is completely misleading because I couldn't find anything misleading about his answer to the question. I'd apologise on his behalf if you felt/feel upset or disappointed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If you haven't seen or consulted the flowchart, the above wall of text you have written is useless. The flowchart is linked to the NPP Welcome message, which editors receive once they are granted the right. You have accepted the fact that the flowchart isn't up to date, which only means the workaround exists. If it's not updated, it shouldn't be in the welcome message. If you have a problem with that, take it to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers.

No one here is asking for your opinion or how you judge articles and this isn't about WP:CCS or any of the policies you have linked above, but about DR's behavior. This wall of text is a poor attempt to redirect the discussion to notability, just like DR did, when it was never about that. Don't ping me as I will not be replying further if you are going to make this about notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your view. I definitely appreciate the importance of the flowchart. I as well understand the role it plays in guiding new page patrollers even though it is currently outdated in my opinion. My intention was not to disregard DR's behavior but to discuss the broader context of notability and article review processes, which I believe are central to our shared goal of improving Wikipedia. I respect your decision not to continue this discussion (I am not, either), and I will take your advice into consideration moving forward. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You should have taken it to the relevant talk pages if you wanted to discuss the broader context of notability and the article review process, not in this RfA. I believe the intention of this wall of text was successfully achieved. Cheers. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• I know DreamRimmer is a very nice guy, and they always help new and old editors in any condition, and they coordinated two times NPP backlogs. and they are always active here, and they are familiar with more policies on Wikipedia. I think if they make an administrator on English Wikipedia, I fully trust that they will delve into the more obscure areas of administration only after gaining enough knowledge of that particular area. Overall, she is a great candidate for administrator privileges.Happy editing ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 05:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Sixteen optional questions? Really? Some of them multi-parters as well, or requiring long answers. Please could some of you consider striking your questions, because sixteen questions before voting starts is just unfair and unreasonable.—S Marshall T/C 07:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure they don't have to be answered, hence optional. Conyo14 (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Candidates feel a lot of pressure to answer them.—S Marshall T/C 07:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am literally echoing Conyo14's reply, they're literally optional questions which requires optional answers. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Optional" is an unfortunate choice of words. They should really be called something like "additional" questions (beyond the 3 canned questions). And there are 13, not 16, as the first 3 are not part of the group, even though the numbering continues from 3. I believe "optional" refers principally to the questioner, not the candidate. The candidate is not required to answer questions, but, generally, candidates answer all questions, even ones that many believe are inappropriate. I see nothing wrong with asking questions. It is usually the only way to have a "discussion" with the candidate and seek clarification of their views on all sorts of things. We've limited the number of questions by editor but not the total number of questions by the community.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not answering questions provides a tool for any opposition to oppose (by saying "they didn't answer X question what are they hiding"). Candidates are pressured to answer them, and to take a lot of time answering them. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  As has been said many times over the years by many 'crats, !votes along these lines rarely make a difference in the overall scheme of an RFA, and tend to be weighed very lightly if and when an RFA reaches a 'crat chat. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sometimes questions are great and helpful, and sometimes people ask them just to ask them. Every extra question during my RfA just hurt my heart and now I never want to ask an unnecessary question. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  No doubt many who have gone through the process feel an expectation and pressure to not only answer the additional questions, but also to ensure you don't unintentionally discredit yourself with a poor response. It's an element of the process that is entirely unpredictable, both in terms of volume of questioning and their nature. I generally considered they were, broadly speaking, "optional", but Bbb23's observations above make me think. RfA these days feels close to a job interview. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Heh, at least on a job interview, if you get the job, you get paid!--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sure that would make for an interesting general news story if financial donations towards wikimedia were to help pay for the administrative staff! Interesting point though, how many jobs are there where you're publicly judged by hundreds of strangers, with the reward being voluntary service. I'd also like to hope that most additional questions would broadly relate to pressing matters discovered during an RfA which require needful clarification or candidate response. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sometimes I feel like RFA is some kind of weird cross between an open book test, a job interview, and an election. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  It definitely is, hehe. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• Solid editor!!! I've never been more convinced of an editor's abilities in my whole 18 months of editing Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. I once confused this editor for an admin; they should have gotten the mop a while ago. This RFA is long overdue. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have no idea whether or not we're supposed to put hrs between bullets, but my view is that while DR has only been active about a year, the quintessential question is if he would be a good admin, to which the answer is (IMO) a resounding yes. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Fully agree with this. While some people have their precise criteria about stuff like needing a certain age of activity, a certain number of GAs, etc., I think these should really be treated as indicative at best, rather than as dealbreakers. Someone can be a great admin without fitting any specific criteria, and Goodhart's law should be kept in mind. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• The answer to Q15 shows that they have enough experience in closing an AfD, compared to the previous candidate (Q26) who just wanted to close the AfD by No Consensus or de facto Keep. GrabUp - Talk 05:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  But it seems to me from reading WP:SOFTDELETE that if there is a comment against deletion then the article cannot be soft deleted (which is what I thought initially upon seeing the question). J947 ‡ ^edits 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  That’s not exactly correct. A soft deletion, treated like an expired PROD, is definitely a great move here. We’ve seen AfDs where there’re even more delete !votes than keeps, but gets deleted or soft deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I thought this was a strange answer. Soft-deleted articles have to be restored if anyone requests it at WP:REFUND, so it doesn't make sense in a situation where someone's already !voted keep. (There are a couple administrators who do this, though, so I guess it's not completely out of the question.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Extraorinary’s comment is somewhat true that the person who voted to keep can request the article back, and it will be returned. Then, the person who nominated it might again nominate it for deletion, putting us back in the same position. We should wait for another opinion, so relisting is the best option. GrabUp - Talk 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've seen administrators close deletion discussions as "soft delete" in similar situations. While it may be a bit unusual, it's within administrative discretion to go for such a outcome especially in areas that tend to attract a very low turnout in AFDs. Sohom (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, some current admins do this. FWIW, if an AfD like this is closed as “no consensus” there’s a possibility the article would not be improved further, of course anyone could renominate it, but looking at the way we treat soft deletions (like expired PRODs) then that because a good option because REFUNDING, AFAIK, to an extent means that you have improvements to make to a particular version of a deleted page which might bring improvements to this page. There’s just more likelihood for improvement going with soft delete than it is for no consensus. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  On reflection I think the answer is worse than just that too. Normal deletion is out of the question as in that scenario the existence of the keep comment would have changed the result from soft delete to hard delete – obviously insane. Even the cited argument to avoid specifically only applies to cases where the sourcing is unreliable; the article is acknowledged as well-sourced. In the end, it boils down to two different views of significant coverage, and while that of the nominator is much more in line with normal practice than that of the keep commenter, neither comment is strange enough to completely disregard. With regard to this candidacy I don't really care because the candidate hasn't indicated a willingness to work at AfD (and moreover it's a loaded question), but it's worth pointing out any close of that discussion that isn't no consensus would be crazy IMO. It's two superficial, opposing comments with no effort to search for sources – 5–5 along those lines (with some effort to search for sources, one would hope!), sure, delete; but at 1–1 the nature of the dispute is much less clear. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Here is a small discussion at the Teahouse which is relevant to this conversation. Anyone can refer to it to learn more about "Ignore all rules." GrabUp - Talk 06:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Although no individual source has detailed coverage, and many are databases, there is clearly enough information out there to write an article, since this article is well-sourced and is moderately long (two sections, about 150 words). Keep per WP:IAR and the spirit of WP:N. is, in my opinion, likely to get downweighted by AFD closing admins, because it is essentially saying I agree with you that this doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, but let's WP:IAR and keep it anyway. And when viewed that way, I think this is a very unpersuasive statement to leave in an AFD discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is very much my thoughts too; I didn't want to prolong this particular discussion that's why I didn't reply again. I just do not think it is a good choice to use WP:IAR at AfD discussions, a discussion that is supposed to determine whether or not an article should continue existing, Nah. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

• After reading over basically everything that has been said, I don't see any issues with this candidate that cannot be explained as good-faith mistakes. They have the experience needed and will probably be a net positive as an admin. Toadspike [Talk] 07:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not going to oppose based on text-source integrity issues because that is an issue basically unrelated to adminship. However, it might suggest that the attention to detail is not entirely there, which is an important trait for many admin tasks. (t · c) buidhe 13:26, 30 May 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:Requests for adminship/Debriefs – RfA candidates sharing their RfA experience
• Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
• Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
• Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
• Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
  • Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
• Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
• Nominator's guide
• Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
• Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.