Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-confirmed-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Toadspike 74 0 2 100 Open 16:26, 9 October 2025 6 days, 17 hours no report
Current time is 22:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Toadspike 74 0 2 100 Open 16:26, 9 October 2025 6 days, 17 hours no report
Current time is 22:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections, an alternative type of RfA, took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The latest administrator election took place in July 2025, with the next election in December 2025.

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N/A %
KylieTastic AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 374 66 101 85
Kj cheetham AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 350 64 127 85
Ser! AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 314 91 136 78
Curbon7 AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 293 87 161 77
Jlwoodwa AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 314 95 132 77
Smasongarrison AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 312 98 131 76
UndercoverClassicist AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 307 97 137 76
CoconutOctopus AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 315 110 116 74
Hinnk AE Elected 31 Jul 2025 260 100 181 72

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

Nomination standards

The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience, and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.

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

Nominations

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

Please do not transclude the RfA page until after the nomination has been accepted by the candidate, and the page, and its questions, has been filled out to the candidate's satisfaction. Be aware that the process will start the moment the RfA is transcluded to this page.

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 the extended confirmed right.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not administrators or extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.

In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[3] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.

In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[4] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.

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

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion if there is one. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[5]

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 22:56:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Toadspike

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (74/0/2); Scheduled to end 16:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Monitors:

Nomination

Toadspike (talk · contribs) – It is my pleasure to put forth Toadspike for administrator. I first noticed his iconic bright green signature at RM after I got my own page mover rights and saw a competent, methodical, and calm way of handling discussions. I quickly found myself sighing in relief whenever I saw him show up in heated RMs or beating me to a close; this is someone I and others trust and learn from regularly. Toadspike is a frequent contributor at RMTR, keeping the page clean of requests and explaining why various requests are contested with steps to go forward. He is consistently clear and patient with newer editors, the primary users of RMTR, but firm enough to enforce the article title guidelines. But even more exceptional are his requested move closes. Even when challenged, he remains calm, focused on the merit of the arguments, and I find him to be well-reasoned and always with a plausible, valid read of consensus.

Outside of requested moves he is diligent at providing AFD with high quality participation, translation assistance, AFC and NPP, and improving articles. You can gander around his contributions and find thoughtful, thorough work no matter where you look. He is an editor that I trust to handle adminship with diligence and decorum. I hope you join me in supporting. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

You don't need to hang around AfD for long, either as participant or closer, to become grateful for Toadspike's accurate, in-depth, and well-researched !votes. In particular, 'Spike haunts WP:DSCH and WP:DSZH, bringing his multilingual source-sleuthing skills to bear on some of our most difficult discussions, where he is always collaborative, kind, and sympathetic. As Sennecaster notes, he remains calm when challenged, even when that challenge comes from the kind of person who signs off with a "go to hell." (For the even temperament required of administrators, look no further.) His experience with the administrative side of the project extends through WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:RM, and copyright cleanup. For these reasons, I have been (gently!) pestering him to run for the better part of a year. I am glad to see the time has finally come. -- asilvering (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you. I accept the nomination. I have never edited for pay and I have one alternate account, User:Toad's Pike. Toadspike [Talk] 15:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I enjoy helping out where my skills and abilities are most needed. In the past, this has meant helping with language-related queries and translations or making use of access to sources others may not have. Over the past six-and-a-half years, I have also built up skills that are very specific to Wikipedia's "backend" processes, such as assessing notability at articles for deletion, determining common names in requested moves, and summarizing consensus in discussions, alongside general familiarity with our many policies, guidelines, and processes. Lately, I have noticed that I often have the knowledge to act on administrative tasks, but not the tools. This includes closing AfDs as delete, performing admin requests at RM/TR, or fixing Main Page issues at ERRORS. I am interested in becoming an administrator because I'd like to make better use of what I've learned and improve the encyclopedia in new ways.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: 5 Broadgate, Julier Pass, and Anna Pestalozzi-Schulthess are representative of my content work, along with the six articles I’ve had featured on DYK (linked at the top of my userpage). I am equally proud of my content reviews, which often require greater attention to detail, especially the source reviews. Some examples are Featured article candidates/Guandimiao, Featured list candidates/List of Kansas City Chiefs first-round draft picks, Featured article candidates/Kim Kitsuragi, and Talk:Vavilovian mimicry/GA1. I like to think my participation at AfD and my assistance at RM/TR have also been useful, and I help out at the Resource Exchange when I can (which not as often as I like; y’all request obscure stuff!). Finally, I’ve closed some gnarly discussions; many of these can be found in my edits to CR, such as this RfD and this RSN discussion, but this also includes my closes of RMs and AfDs.
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: I have often had disagreements with others and certainly been stressed; when I see a new talk page message, my first instinct is (still) to wonder what I’ve screwed up. However, I try to prevent disagreements from becoming emotional or personal, because that is the best way to find consensus and improve the encyclopedia. The discussion on my user talk page of my close of the Church Fathers RM is an example where I took time to respond calmly and carefully, focusing on my interpretation of the discussion in light of relevant policy. Once I had explained my close and the discussion felt like it was going in circles, I left it at that. The close was then taken to Move Review, where I chose not to comment, having already said everything I wanted to on my talk page. Overall, my conduct in that situation was a good example of how I prefer to handle potentially contentious interactions.

You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. Make sure to use level 5 section headers, not bold face. (5 equal signs)

Discussion

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

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

Support
  1. As nominator. -- asilvering (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, will make a great admin. MCE89 (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As nominator! :D Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 16:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A strong candidate, I wholeheartedly agree with the nominators' assessment of their comportment and the value that they have brought to various noticeboard discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Expletive yes. charlotte 👸♥ 16:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've had my eye on Toadspike for a time. I am particularly excited to have an admin with native trilingual fluency in English, German (the language of the next-largest Wikipedia), and Chinese (the most widely spoken language in the world) and who really enjoys helping with translations on request. And that is doubly so for someone active at AFD, where we desperately need editors who can find and consider non-English sources. Easy support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am here, I am particularly unconcerned with the neutral's concerns; even under the assumption that content should be a prerequisite for RfA, you can show you understand how content with, well, everything listed in the nominations and in Q2. The fact Toadspike hasn't engaged with one particular way to demonstrate that experience is meaningless. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - great participation record at AfD, clearly understands our policies and guidelines. Owen× ☎ 16:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I've seen them at AfD and have appreciated the amount of work they put into the discussions. Dr vulpes (Talk) 16:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - I've interacted with Toadspike a few times, at AfD and WikiProject China. I absolutely concur with the nominators' statements, and think that they will make a splendid administrator. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Elli (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support – I am not concerned at all by the lack of a GA, especially given Toadspike's participation in GAN and FAC reviews. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Thoughtful and competent. Has valuable language skills. AfD closes show good judgement. Has the critical ability to reevaluate their own position. Support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I've run into Toadspike quite a lot writing about Chinese history, and I can say they're a dedicated editor and a huge asset to the encyclopedia. I don't frequent AfD or RMs as much as some, but I when I do I often see them around and see them making great points. I also wanna +1 HouseBlaster's point on the importance of multilingual editors. And re: the neutral; I feel editors who know how to recognize when an article is in a bad spot and help with that know just as much about content creation as someone with a dozen FAs. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 17:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Easy support, I've very impressed from prior interactions with Toadspike. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Easy support from me. Work in review spaces clearly shows, to my mind, the sort of content expertise we would normally look at GA nominations and similar to evidence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- always need more AfD administrators and this one is very strongly endorsed. Articles written look nice. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support – good editor who cares about people Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support, very nice editor to deal with; their record shows that they have the knowledge and skills to go with it. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support – Yay, my first RfA! Seems fine to me, might change depending on questions. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 17:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, nothing but positive interactions with them, their engagement in content spaces through reviews assuages any content-specific concerns. -- Sohom (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support mostly because of answer to Q3. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support of course!--A09|(talk) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, very strongly. CoconutOctopus talk 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, much of this has already been said but Toadspike is level-headed and understanding, always a great addition to discussions, and I've had exclusively positive interactions. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, have seen Toadspike around quite a bit in the page review/AfD world and I believe their adminship will be a big positive for the project. Good luck! Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Frost 17:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support touchdown! NicheSports (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Yes sir! (Finally another RfA 😭) fanfanboy (blocktalk) 17:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Mais oui! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Suppoort, per trusted noms. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, per trusted nominators. I don't think having a GA or a FA should be a prerequisite to adminship. Toadspike has more than enough content work for my tastes and has been always been a calm and reasonable voice where I've seen them around. LightlySeared (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support (Another RFA YAY!!!!) Valorrr (lets chat) 18:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. The poise Toadspike showed in the discussion related to the Church Fathers requested move is commendable. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support No doubts. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support no worries here. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, enthusiastically. Toadspike has a command of multiple languages and an even temper, in addition to a lot of clue and, from everything I have seen, a good grasp of policy. --bonadea contributions talk 18:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  43. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support - I've seen Toadspike around, and my impressions have generally been all positive. Experienced editor with civility and sense :). GoldRomean (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support thanks for the chemistry lesson! Joke talk aside, don’t see problems with Toadspike and he should be a positive to the wiki with the admin tools, cheers! Kline • talk • contribs 19:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support - No reason not to. Garion96 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support LGTM - had my eye on Toadspike for a while as a potential addition to the mop corps. ~delta (talk • cont) 19:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support I spent a bit of time looking into this candidate, and I saw only green flags. His AFD match rate is 93% and he's pretty even between keeps and deletes, and his AFD contributions have been praised by many more eloquent people above and on his talk page. Speaking of which, I skimmed his talk page archives, and saw the exact type of collegiality and accountability that we look for in admins. I'm not worried about the lack of a GA because his work with new page patrol and the guild of copy editors shows that he has a strong grasp of our content policies and guidelines. Toadspike will make a great admin. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Rossouw (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support- because I thought he was...already a system operator, and a good, clear, efficient and friendly one at that. .--e.ux 20:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support: I recall their delicate handling of the initial Church Fathers move mentioned above. I was not privy to their subsequent response to challenges on that close. Having read that and the recent tangentially related ArbCom decision, I am thoroughly impressed with this editor's commitment to the admin elements of the project. Their consistent quality content work makes them an ideal candidate in my book. Best of luck with the mop! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Trustworthy and a good editor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support I don't always agree with Toadspike but I trust this user with the tools. Not concerned regarding the content creation. Let'srun (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support HouseBlaster said it well. Perfect4th (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support I couldn't think of a reason to oppose seeing as Toadspike has always been a great editor all around Wikipedia. JuniperChill (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Glad to see this! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support! Fathoms Below (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I've seen them around. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Why not. And thanks for reminding us we have these. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Patient, articulate and sensible. Overqualified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strongest possible support. The admin corps would benefit from stable hands like Toadspike. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support no issues for me. – robertsky (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I see no issues he as a good AFD record and everytime I encounter him in a discussion he makes considered calm points.GothicGolem29 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  66. CNC (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Zzz plant (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 21:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support My interactions (direct and indirect) with Toadspike have only left a positive impression. – haj ☘ (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Of course. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 22:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - I have no doubt that Toad is a competent candidate and I appreciate their calm but thoughtful approach. Also a bonus to have an admin that understands more technical medical topics a bit. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Trustworthy editor, trustworthy noms. What's not to like? Miniapolis 22:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support - I've observed Toad in discussions -- have found them thoughtful and knowledgeable -- and trust they will do fine as an admin. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
  1. I like that you're a member of WP:GOCE and active as WP:NPP; both always show you are familiar with prose styling and other article policies. However, the amount of articles you've started is low (not that it's a bad thing!) and the majority are start or stub-class. I'd suggest getting a WP:GA to show that you are familiar with Wikipedia's core content policies. I'm not voting oppose because I recognize that you have a lot of experience in administrative areas, as outlined at the nom statement. If you need help with getting a GA outside of this RfA feel free to message me; I'd be glad to help. EF5 16:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has a lot of GAs, FAs, and 4As under my belt, I don't think having a GA article is necessary to show sufficient experience with content PAGs. I try not to participate at RfAs, but I just wanted to note I think that this is an unnecessary bar and not a good reason to not support an otherwise qualified candidate. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my personal bar, so we'll just agree-to-disagree. EF5 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not sure if this would at all help in your evaluation of skills but toad did aid me significantly in the nomination of List of chronic pain syndromes as a FL. While they were a reviewer here not a writer, the review they did: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of chronic pain syndromes/archive1 helps reassure me personally that they are competent in technically difficult fields. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll take a look in a little bit and reevaluate. EF5 22:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not enough evidence of being good at conflict resolution and related matters- and I think en wiki needs admins who are certainly good with that, with technical stuff being relatively less important. Very user otherwise though- would have voted yes if admin powers did not give them power directly over people. (I'm not going to change this vote, so I would rather not have replies trying to change my mine, please). HSLover/DWF (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • Is this the longest time between RfA nominations since 2021 (maybe ever)? We didn't have one for almost six months. Of course, the reason is due to the new WP:ALECT process. JuniperChill (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at all the data I could find, this seems to be the case at a whopping 162 days between individual RfA's (5 1⁄3 months), crazy! Kline • talk • contribs 21:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BATON tracks [new] admins since August 2022 (so excluding reconfirmations)—and confirms both comments above. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About RfB

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

Shortcut

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.

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with the extended confirmed right following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1314662236"