This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Open for discussion
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Lourdes 2 137 2 3 99 03:01, 26 February 2018 4 days, 17 hours no report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 09:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), 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.

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, deleting pages, and editing elements of the site interface that can appear on every page.

About RfA and its process

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Uebelhoer RfA WP:SNOW 13 Jan 2018 0 8 0 0
Cameron11598 RfA Withdrawn 2 Jan 2018 20 23 4 47
Muboshgu RfA Successful 29 Dec 2017 193 4 1 98
Power~enwiki RfA Withdrawn 16 Dec 2017 3 21 4 13
Joe Roe RfA Successful 30 Nov 2017 169 2 7 99
TonyBallioni RfA Successful 19 Oct 2017 224 3 2 99
Rickyc123 RfA WP:NOTNOW 18 Oct 2017 3 13 4 19

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
There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice|a}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
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 he or she 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 relevant candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions can be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even 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 in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which may feel like "baiting"), consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you would reply. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. 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). 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".[1]
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 and/or WP:NOTNOW. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6. 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 here.
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.


  1. ^ 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.

Current nominations for adminship

Current time is 09:07:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.


Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (137/2/3); Scheduled to end 03:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


Lourdes (talk · contribs) – I have had my eye on Lourdes becoming an administrator for some time. She has an impressive number of mainspace contributions, including Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851, William Walker (Australian cricketer) and Cottalango Leon. She has a good track record in AfD and CSD; even when consensus doesn't go her way such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zaid Ali (2nd nomination), she is civil and respectful to the other participants in the debate (not to mention putting forward the strongest argument, IMHO). She regularly participates in noticeboard discussions, helping to calm down tempers and diffuse difficult situations. In particular, I see her a lot on the Help desk, fielding questions from new and experienced users alike.

As you can see, this is Lourdes' second RfA. Since the first one, around a year ago, she has reached out to those who have opposed, gathered constructive feedback, and greatly improved her temperament and communication skills as a result. I was particularly impressed by her comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Joe Roe, where her thoughts on conduct of administrators drew high praise from a number of established editors. If she's getting that sort of feedback, there's no real reason she shouldn't have the admin toolset. I hope you agree. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Co-nomination by SoWhy

When Lourdes ran for adminship the first time, almost exactly a year ago, I was torn. Here was an editor who within a short time had made so many good edits that had she run a decade earlier (when people like me became admins), she would have passed with flying colors. On the other hand, some of the opposers raised good points, mainly about her interactions with other editors and approach to policy. Before I could make up my mind, the RFA was already closed.

In the year since them Lourdes has improved her communication skills and approach to collaboration significantly and a check of her contributions in the meantime did not raise any red flags. As Ritchie already pointed out, she demonstrates a wealth of knowledge of policy as well as skills as a writer that far surpass my own, including an FA that appeared as TFA on the Main Page. In her answers to the standard questions below, you can find more examples of both her skills as an editor and the kind of approach and insight we should expect from all of our admins. So, without further ado, I hope you can agree with Ritchie and me that Lourdes has matured into the kind of editor who would make a great admin and can lend your support to this candidacy. Regards SOWHY 17:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
I thank my nominators for their gracious nominations and humbly accept the same. I hope I'm able to learn as much as they have in the years to come. I also sincerely thank the community in advance for taking the time to review this RfA. (I have two alternative accounts: LourdesBot(approval) and ❤️(usage policy) Briefly, I was also User:Wìkìpe-tan at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan. I have never been a paid editor.) Thanks, Lourdes 02:49, 19 February 2018 (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. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
A: During my tenure here, I have gained a fair amount of experience in the AfD, CSD, Usernames for administrator attention, Administrator intervention against vandalism and Requests for page protection areas. If this request is accepted by the community, I expect to take part significantly in these areas. Having said that, I do expect myself to not jump headlong into all of these together. I would rather start with limited admin actions and focus on learning. To prioritize, I'll start at the AfD and CSD desks where I would see and learn from the regulars, and subsequently move on to the other mentioned areas once I'm comfortable.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: I have contributed to Wikipedia in various areas and some of these are very close to my heart as a result of the knowledge and experience I have gained while collaborating with other editors.
In the mainspace area, amongst 34 articles (listed at User:Lourdes), my best contribution is Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851, a featured article that appeared on Wikipedia's main page on 11 February 2018 – purely due to the wonderful collaboration I have had with one of the FAC coordinators. I also have two featured lists (of which one appeared on the main page on 1 May 2017), three good articles and seven DYKs; I'm fortunate to have had the opportunity to work upon these with other editors. In this list, I also include a few articles that I saved from the deletion desk by re-writing them (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, amongst others).
I have written seven user scripts (listed at User:Lourdes), including the Page Curation script, which is now used by quite a few editors. I count that too amongst my best contributions.
Apart from these, I have been a significant contributor at the Help desk throughout my time here at Wikipedia, answering queries and helping editors to the best of my knowledge. For example, when a user requested a solution to find out possible backlinks to articles, I created User:Lourdes/Backlinks as a solution. When another user complained that Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance made no sense, I wrote up this response and spruced up the original page too. With committed intent, I cherish my Help desk contributions because of the invaluable opportunities I've gained to interact with and assist both newbie and established editors and resolving their editing issues.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes, I have been in conflicts in the past. Over the time I've spent here, I've learnt better to deal with such situations and the editors involved. Instead of responding with the same tone to editors who may have, for example, either called me names or have become hot-tempered, I've extended an olive branch, offering them my guidance if they required it. In article talk pages (for example, at Swati Chaturvedi or at Kavijanasrayam), I've handled potentially disruptive discussions with policy/guideline-based arguments. When established editors have disagreed with my edits (for example at Telaga), I've taken the effort to understand their points of view and worked towards collaborative and consensus-based edits.
Perhaps the most significant example of how I have handled criticism can be seen at my earlier RfA. While my withdrawal statement at the said RfA consolidates my proactive orientation towards the critical feedback, even post that, I have worked hard towards attempting to improve upon the areas that editors had pointed out. From ensuring that the tone of my interactions softens considerably towards RfA nominees, to ensuring intelligent and worthwhile Afd contributions, to handling vandalistic edits with a combination of policy and common sense, I have also individually reached out to the key opposing editors to get their renewed feedback.
No editor has till date personally attacked me – so I don't know how that feels. But going forward, I believe that the ability to listen to logical criticism – whether during conflict or away from it – and act on it is key to self-improvement, and I would hope that I continue doing that.

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.

Additional question from Smallbones
4. First thanks for answering whether you've ever edited for pay without even being asked! You are the first admin candidate since the addition to WP:Admin of "Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay." You've met the requirement, but could you give a more general comment about your attitude toward paid editing and how you'll deal with paid editing as an admin? Thanks again, Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A: Hello Smallbones. Thanks for your question. I am against undisclosed paid-editing, or disclosed paid editing that does not adhere to our editing policies and guidelines. Such editing has the egregious potential of shifting the focus of articles from being encyclopedic to being promotional or to having conflicted content; as a recent Arbcom case witnessed, such editing may also promote points of view within various forums that serve the purpose of only the paid-editors or of those whom they work for, and I'm against all of this.
I do understand that there are a few areas (e.g. GLAM) where contributions are made in good faith. However, I believe that even editors who may be teaching or working at GLAM organizations should necessarily disclose their associations in case they are paid for their contributions. Without such disclosures, the community would not be able to review the contributions in the right perspective.
Having said that, in all of this, I also understand the need to exercise restraint and caution as no investigative process should end up demotivating the majority of our editors, who are unpaid volunteers; and in my broad understanding, it’s critically important that we do not push such good-faith editors for unnecessary disclosures in our eagerness to get paid-editing disclosed.
My response to paid-editing as an administrator would run mostly similar to how I’ve handled it whenever I’ve come across such editors in the past. I would advise paid editors to adhere to the requirements of our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline; and in cases where the editor falls short and disrupts the project, to report such cases at relevant desks to get more eyes on the issue and to take restrictive action as may be feasible, depending on each case.
Additional question from Everymorning
5. How have you improved as an editor since your last RFA beyond having become more experienced? Some of the opposes at your first RFA were just because they didn't think you had enough experience, but I'm asking about other concerns expressed by oppose voters there, like Sergecross73. He wrote the following about you in his oppose !vote: "...I've kind of been rubbed the wrong way with some of their interactions. A few editors in the past, myself included, have expressed concerns with their badgering of people at WP:RFA." Similarly, Softlavender accused you of "adopting a superior and patronizing tone with admins and more experienced editors". I want to know how you have improved to address these concerns. (Sorry this question is so long.)
A: Hello Everymorning. I understand the perspective of your query. Both Serge and Softlavender brought out quite relevant issues in my previous Rfa. Serge and Softlavender’s opposes, apart from similar ones of other editors, provided me insights into where I had gone wrong in my past interactions. Communication, respect, civility and ability to understand criticism and improve thereon are critical to a productive and collaborative environment. For administrators, to be a benchmark in these is non-negotiable, and in the months leading to my previous RfA, I clearly wasn’t.
While my responses to query #3 would provide you insights into how I’ve hopefully improved in handling criticism and in my interactions with other editors, whether tendentious or established, let me also share a part of a communication that I had recently with one of the opposers of my last Rfa; my communication to them consolidates much of my thought on what happened then and how I view it now.
Hello, Hope all is well. As you had suggested, I've taken a deep and long look at Ferret's Rfa and my interactions there. Maybe it's because of the experience I've had in the past year, or perhaps it's because of my taking a re-look from a perspective of a neutral observer (I mean, I've tried to look at the Rfa as would a person not involved with the Rfa), I have to say that I'm a bit embarrassed about how I've proceeded in that particular Rfa. Putting myself in Ferret's shoes, (and I think I realize this more after my own failed Rfa), I would feel quite disappointed that an editor can ask pushy questions like I did, and not wait for comprehensive replies before jumping onto the oppose segment, and then push more for replies to multiple questions. Time teaches us various things I guess – and one thing I've learnt is that it takes little effort to criticize fellow editors, and quite some maturity to understand the effort that fellow editors – like Ferret – are taking to improve the project and make it a better place for readers. With respect to how I'd handle it now, I think my Rfa interactions with nominees over the past year can provide significant evidence of how I've changed from a person "trying to find out what's wrong with the nominee" to an editor who tries to find out what all proactive efforts the editor has taken to support the project. Since the Ferret incident, and since my Rfa, from a critic out to prove (some silly) point, I believe I've changed to defending nominations of positively oriented candidates. An example could be Joe Roe's Rfa, where there was opposition to his Afd participation. I defended Joe's actions, explaining why it's human to err, and nothing more than that should be made of it ([]). I can imagine – or rather, perhaps I don't want to recall – how I would have responded if Joe's Rfa had been two years ago. Similar is how I've participated in other Rfas in the past year, questioning questionable oppose !votes and going the extra mile in supporting credible candidates. If Ferret's Rfa were happening now, I would be one of the first supporters. Like I said, I think the more interactions one has over the years, the more stable one's responses become within the cultural context of Wikipedia. I hope what I've written makes some sense :) If there's anything else you would wish me to take a re-look at, please do share. Have a good time in your travels. Warmly, Lourdes…
Everymorning, I hope this provides the context you were looking for in your query. If not, please feel free to ask further.
Additional question from SMcCandlish
6. Are you regularly doing any "admin-ish" activity? Non-admin closures; clerking for any processes that use clerks; responsible use of advanced bits like template-editor, page-mover; etc. What stands out as work you're proud of, and how have you resolved any criticisms?
A: Hi SMcCandish, my exposure to some of the admin-related areas is listed in my response to question 1. Some of my NACs may be found through this link, which I got from the toolbox below. My pending changes review log can be viewed here. A list of the work that I’m proud of can be seen in my response to question 2. Examples of my handling conflict and criticism can be seen in my response to question 3. Do please ask if you require more clarification. Thanks.
To clarify, I'm fishing for examples of admin-like activity that you think is particularly exemplary, and/or which shows your dispute-resolution handling.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
You're probably going to get me booted out of this Rfa for this, but here goes:
  1. Special:Permalink/804619573#Reporting hounding, and the discussion continued at User_talk:Lourdes#Help Desk
  2. Special:Permalink/800715690#Personal attack
  3. An NAC of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy, where the discussion continued at Special:Permalink/790376480#Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Caribbean Journal of International Relations & Diplomacy
Apart from these, I consider Afd discussions also akin to a form of debate/dispute resolution. To that extent, there are some Afds that I recall where the nominators including established editors and administrators, withdrew their nominations after I had placed convincing arguments. These are as follows:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frazan Kotwal
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Academy Group of Institutions
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Point Business Park
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhtar Khan
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milyang No clan
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jo Mitchell
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karina Okotel
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulaga Tamil Sangam
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Mordal
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit V Masurkar
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthcare Delivery Organization
  12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayraj Salgaokar
  13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unnat Jeevan by Affordable Appliances and LEDs for All
  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chapo Trap House episodes
  15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kavijanasrayam
  16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dev (actor) filmography
  17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidium of the Bundesrat
If you want more examples, I can do a deeper search in my contributions. Thanks once more.
Additional question from Amorymeltzer
7. What are your thoughts on Administrator Recall? Is it necessary given our other procedures? Do you intend to take part?
A: To be honest, I have not given any thoughts on administrator recall. I have witnessed some cases of administrative overreach. In most of these cases, to my understanding, the community seemed successful in engaging with the administrator involved and effecting a course correction. In extreme cases, the arbitration committee has taken the bit away, or the administrator has resigned the bit before the final decision. So I’m ambivalent on the need to have an admin recall procedure. However, if the community in the future makes the same mandatory, I’m okay with it.
Additional question from Linguist111
8. Suppose, right now, an IP adds an unreferenced list of supposed new Asia's Next Top Model contestants to this table, in the box where it says "TBA" in the section "Other contestants in order of elimination" (this has actually happened multiple times before, here for example). I, knowing that the sixth season (or "cycle" as it is called) of Asia' Next Top Model has not started airing yet and the list of contestants has not been printed in any reliable sources and cannot be verified in any way, revert this, saying it is unreferenced or original research (as I have done a number of times in the past, e.g. here, here, and here in the "Contestants per country" section) and welcome the IP with {{welcome-anon-unsourced}} on their talk page. Without any discussion, the IP puts the list back in and I revert, leaving {{uw-unsourced2}} or {{uw-nor2}} on their talk page. This happens again and I give them a level 3 warning, after which they revert a third time. Now, if I revert again, it will be my fourth revert, but if not, the unverifiable material remains in the article. What action do you think would be appropriate for me to take now, and why?
A: If you're sure that there are no reliable sources supporting the addition of names by the IP, then such material would go against our BLP policy. In that light, give a level 4 warning to the IP, revert the addition, report the issue at WP:BLPN or WP:ANI mentioning that you crossed 3RR in the light of BLP violations, and request more eyes from experienced editors and administrators who frequent the BLP/AN noticeboard to review the situation. Thanks.
Additional question from GeneralizationsAreBad
9. How would you respond to this AIV report?
A: The OP Mvcg66b3r had a couple of hours earlier added a report about the same user Chrome2005. It was perhaps mistakenly removed by another editor (I dream of horses) as a stale report, leading to the OP re-adding the report you link above. A quick look at the history of the articles shows immediate, matching multiple ducks in the form of Chrome 313 and Chrome 313 2. A rudimentary seat-of-the-pants review of the editing behavior of these accounts shows a matching standard pillar-box HD/SD vandal, whose edits match multiple editors like WALL-EPixarSpongebobfansic2008, WALL-EPixarSpongebob, Spongebobfan1997 and multiple IPs, with the probable master being Tazlinc1. This is a long-term abuser and should be blocked on sight, with additional assistance sought from checkusers for blocking any hidden sock.
Additional question from Andrew D.
10. A lot of your edits have the edit summary "clean up and fixes". For example, see Indian students abroad. Please explain what is being done. Andrew D. (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A: Hello Andrew. These are simple gnomish formatting edits I undertake from time to time on articles that I get using the random article link. Thanks.
Additional question from Ivanvector
The following two questions are based on this scenario: Three users are engaged in an edit war on an article subject to Arbcom discretionary sanctions. All three editors want to change the stable content but have different points of view. You have full-protected the article for 3 days, and a discussion between the editors has been progressing productively. It is the second day of protection.
11a. While the three editors are politely discussing the matter, you notice that a map image in the article has changed. Clicking through the map to Commons, you discover that the three are now revert-warring over different versions of the map, causing it to change rapidly and not match the protected caption in the enwiki article, and you also discover that the three are now edit-warring in other articles linked from the protected article. What can you do?
A. Ivan, to the best of my memory, I've never had experience with any articles under discretionary sanctions. So I'm afraid that due to my lack of experience in this area, my response may come out to be sub-optimal or plain wrong – but I'll try surely (my apologies in advance if the answer is plain wrong). The ultimate objective of any resolution process is to reduce disruption to the project, while encouraging collaborative editing. Knowing that the editors have been politely discussing, there may have been potential for them to be advised informally. But given that the three have extended their edit-warring to the commons image and to other articles (I understand that these articles too possibly belong to the same discretionary sanctions area), assuming that the three editors have not been aware of or procedurally notified of this in the preceding 12 months, I'll proceed to formally make them aware of the existing discretionary sanctions; and at the same time advising them to stop edit-warring on articles broadly and reasonably construed to be coming under the said discretionary sanctions; as well as to stop warring on the commons image, which defeats the purpose of the page protection and is almost equivalent to gaming the system. I expect that given their polite demeanor, things should proceed to normal. If they don't, and the warring continues, in my inexperienced opinion, specific 1RR restrictions may be placed on the specific warring editors, explaining clearly through formal sanctioning templates about why the same have been placed and informing them of the scalable consequences of not adhering to the restrictions, while noting the same in the arbcom log. If things still remain downhill with the warring, progressively increasing blocks can be placed on the specific warring editors to ensure the project is not disrupted. I don't know if I got this whole procedure right, but hope it makes sense.
11b. Two of the editors have come to an agreement, while the third opposes but has been blocked for a week by another admin due to an unrelated incident. Should you lift the protection?
A. In the spirit of productive collaboration, perhaps yes; but ensuring that I've followed the above mentioned procedure of informing the editors of the existence of discretionary sanctions and advising them to exercise judicious restraint. I know there's no need to hurry on Wikipedia, but in my opinion, there's no need to restrict the good-faith consensus-based editing of any editor just to wait for another editor to get unblocked. I was wondering if my answer would change if two out of the three editors had been blocked for a week and only one was there to edit. I would have still lifted the protection, following the points mentioned previously.
Additional question from Tigraan
12. (For the purpose of this question, assume you do not speak Somali, and do not know any active editor who does. Sorry for the convoluted example, but I see no simpler way to check what I want to check.) You come across a 7-days-old AfD for John Doe. The article consists of the text John Doe is buznessman famous in Somalia who will be the next president; it includes links to two youtube videos in Somali with about 1M views each. Nomination is "Per WP:GNG", two participants !voted delete "per nom, nothing found on the net". What do you do?
Additional question from Jetstreamer
13. Can you please tell us how would you have proceeded in the entire process that led to this [1] closure?
Additional question from Coffee
14. What is your understanding of the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions system, specifically what do you think its purpose is and when should it be utilized?
Additional question from Coffee
15. How many warnings should a person receive before being blocked or otherwise sanctioned for violating a Arbitration Enforcement restriction?


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

  1. Support Per nominators and I have no doubt she will make a good administrator. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support was actually planning on sending an email about this soon too. Very happy to see this going. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support - I supported the last nomination, and am more than happy to support this one as well. Good luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support. Solid nominee. Civil even in disagreements. Net asset to the project. Onel5969 TT me 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  5. Support. Clear net positive. Dekimasuよ! 03:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  6. Support. This user is fantastic. Seen a lot of their work since they're pretty multifaceted on this site - definite vote of support. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  7. Support I don't see anything that would suggest the editor would abuse the tools. SQLQuery me! 03:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  8. Support - Net positive and per nominators.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 03:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  9. Support- Her last RfA had many in the opposition cite her lack of tenure as a pretty weak argument against adminship. A near doubling in tenure should fix that! She should make a great admin. Pagliaccious (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  10. Support I poked around for a reason to be skeptical and have found none. User has made great contributions. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  11. Support - Good content credits with three FA/L articles and a few GAs, respectable tenure, no disciplinary history, high AfD match rate, and a valid and useful reason for wanting to be Admin (specifically, there seems to be a need for additional admins at requests for page protection). The very useful page curation script serves as an extra demonstration of Lourdes' commitment to WP. Chetsford (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  12. Support. Per other supporters and noms, hands down this is a no-brainer!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  13. Support This user would help cut down on vandalism and has the track record to prove it as I see. I support. Ral 33 (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  14. Support, no major issues identified with the candidate. Nakon 04:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  15. Support Trusted user. Nice contributed to the WP:RFP, WP:AIV, WP:CSD and WP:AFD. Also he has approved bot account. I support him. Siddiqsazzad001 (Talk) 05:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    I believe you mean "she" and "her." ~ Amory (utc) 12:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  16. Support Sure, why not? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  17. Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  18. Support as co-nom. Regards SoWhyMobile 05:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  19. Support. Should have passed the first time around, probably. ~ Rob13Talk 05:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  20. Support Delete nominations and logs show suitable experience. FA work shows knowledge of quality editing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  21. Support Babymissfortune 06:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  22. Support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  23. Support: Lovely editor, not much involvement in dispute resolution but I take that as a positive in this case. Alex Shih (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  24. Support Fine content creator. I am particularly fond of the page curation script. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  25. Support.  Anchorvale [email protected]  |  Contributions  06:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  26. Support Per SQL. !dave 07:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  27. Support. content-work a plus. more than likely to be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  28. Support per both nominations and particularly the answer to Question 3. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  29. Support previous concerns about a lack of experience appear to have been rectified. Clear content experience as well as experience in more adminy areas, looks like a great candidate. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  30. Support, seems fine. Good luck! Fish+Karate 08:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  31. Support most definitely would be a net gain for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  32. Support Lourdes has clearly taken on board the advice given to them from the last RfA, which shows not only the mindfulness to accept and act on criticism, but also that they are a driven individual willing to try again. I opposed last time because I believed Lourdes would be a fiery admin - this time however, they've shown they can cool off and act with a level head. They have the knowledge of how to act, when to act and when not to act. What more should we be looking for? - TNT 09:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  33. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 10:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  34. filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  35. Support clear Netpositive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  36. Support Have seen her around and particularly impressed with her work. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  37. Support Seen a good deal of her work in various discussion locations. Am certain will make a good Admin. Eagleash (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  38. Support - I supported the first time around. Lourdes was perfectly qualified to begin with, in my opinion. It's a shame that they were forced to wait a full year, but "better late than never", I suppose. Kurtis (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  39. Support - Having checked out the user's AfD and editing history, looks like a quality nom. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  40. Support per previous. I felt the candidate worthy on their last run; things did indeed only get better. Les jeux sont faits! Of course, no chance of being the first support—without staying up until 3AM...just like christmas eh  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  41. Support has shown plenty of clue and maturity. feminist (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  42. Support - The user now deserves admin-ship after so much valuable contributions. Good Luck Lourdes 2! -- SouravDas1998[email protected] to me? 12:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  43. Support - great candidate, very good work. L293D () 12:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  44. Support Overjoyed to be supporting here. Let's get the boring out of the way: A review of your AIV and UAA contributions looks near perfect, your CSD noms seem quite well met, your AfD record is stellar, and you've had nearly a basket of advanced permissions for over a year to great effect. What's really important to me is that you seem full of cluefulness: a brief review of your actual AfD contributions show thoughtful responses; you've practically MADE the helpdesk, as far as I can see; you've actively worked to make the 'pedia a better (wikilove) and more effective (page curation) environment; you've had a full year of fruitful contributions since the first RfA; and boy does that Joe Roe comment just take the cake. Finally, I believe strongly that there is no need for standards creep, so let me just say that this is well overdue! ~ Amory (utc) 13:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  45. Support No issues at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  46. Support I've seen Lourdes around and had occasional interactions, all of which were pleasant. My impressions are that this is a solid editor with an impressive resume. I have no reservations and see her as a net positive to the community and believe that will be the case as an admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  47. Support - Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  48. Support - Knowledge + Wisdom + Temperament = yes. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  49. Support - It's good to see your name back up for nomination. It's been a good year. Enjoy ma'am. - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  50. support More than meets my standards. Has shown willingness to improve and the ability to utilize constructive feedback. Clear demonstrated ability. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  51. Support - Per nom and because of the answers given. Will clearly be positive for the project. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  52. Support - clearly the type of admin we need. Her answer to my question on paid-editing (#4) IMHO approaches perfection. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  53. Support - With the credentials she has, she'll be perfect for defusing edit wars. WikiSquirrel42 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  54. Support, looks fine. Has been here more than 6 months, has more than 3000 edits, has clue. —Kusma (t·c) 15:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  55. Support, per nom and her set of answers, she'll be an excellent and very welcome admin. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  56. (edit conflict) Support — Per nominations. Their answer to the questions are more than satisfactory too.
    Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 16:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  57. Support has taken feedback from first RfA well, waited a reasonable time since then, and continued to make positive contributions. <humor>And of course per my prior nom of their alt-account.</humor>xaosflux Talk 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  58. Support - I've had good interactions with this user and think they would do a good job. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  59. Support per nom. --Joshualouie711talk 17:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  60. Support No concerns. A nom by SoWhy is a good indication that nothing is hiding in the shadows either. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Support She would be a great admin and she has many good edits! SallyPlease (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Blocked as obvious sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  61. Support - a very competent editor who would make a great admin. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  62. Support precious --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  63. Support - definitely. I looked through Lourdes's contributions and I have no concerns. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  64. Support WP:TTWOA! Clear net positive, no concerns here. JTP (talkcontribs) 19:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  65. Support: Don't see any issues. Clear net positive. — MRD2014 Talk 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  66. Support Per nominators. No red flags I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  67. support per nominator--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  68. Support The answer to Question 5 and the nominations say it all, really. No reason to oppose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  69. Support :D Net Positive. Has a clue --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  70. Support Wonderful user and a very good editor who has proved time and time again she's commited to the project. -- Thanks, Alfie. talk to me | contribs 21:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  71. Support – her contributions at the Help Desk are always polite, on point, and demonstrate a solid knowledge of WP's policies. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  72. Support Of course! No issues. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  73. Support Although not necessarily over the moon with some of their interactions, I don't believe they will misuse the tools. Nihlus 21:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  74. Support I've disagreed with her in the past. Nothing wrong with that. Give her a license to kill, sorry I mean a mop and pail. -- Hoary (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  75. Support Absolutely...we need more content creator admins who know...really know...what it's like down in the trenches. Atsme📞📧 21:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  76. Support Seems very qualified. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  77. Support From what I’ve seen this user is a great editor and already works in admin areas, when they have made mistakes they have been open to criticism, which is a crucial quality in an admin. Happy to support. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  78. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  79. Support - impressed by civility and by thoughtfulness of interventions. Alafarge (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  80. Support --Green Giant (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  81. Support ... and had I been quick enough last year I would've !voted Support in their last RFA! - Civil, Trusted, Level-headed, All round pleasant editor to work with, They're a great editor and they'd make a great admin too!, Easy support. –Davey2010Talk 00:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  82. Support - No issues here. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  83. Support - No red flags is an understatement; Lourdes seems to be knowledgeable of policy and their self-control is evident. Very dedicated. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  84. Support - A very fine all-around editor with good communication skills. I have no reservations. CactusWriter (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  85. Support - Per nom. Also nice to see thoughtful responses at AfD and an understanding of the larger issues at stake in those discussions. Montanabw(talk) 02:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  86. Support no reason not to. Banedon (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  87. Support - I'm convinced. GABgab 02:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  88. Support Looks like the candidate is ready for the mop now. Best of luck! Miniapolis 02:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  89. Support - Lourdes is an excellent mentor, making even a correction welcome with that trademark ending - "Warmly".--Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  90. Support. I recall this editor being instrumental in resolving an instance of conflict mediation in the past. I cannot recall the example, but that's enough for me to support. Steel1943 (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  91. Support, this editor would be a welcome addition to the ranks of the administrators. bd2412 T 04:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  92. Support, per everyone above. ♠PMC(talk) 04:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  93. Support, and happy to do so. SarahSV (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  94. Supported last time, and am happy to do so again. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  95. Support looking at her edits, very helpful and excellent editor Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  96. Support No issues.  Philg88 talk 07:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  97. Support - I think she's ready now to gain the admin tools. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  98. Support The candidate has developed a high level of skill in multiple departments of Wikipedia. I see plenty of good analysis and helpful advice and little recent cause for concern: Noyster (talk), 11:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  99. Support: No issues overall. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 13:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  100. Support, great addition to the broom brigade. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  101. Support I am persuaded that she will be a net positive. Lepricavark (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  102. Support Minecraftr (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  103. Support very good content creation, great work at the help desk and at AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Atlantic306: Think you meant support instead of keep? Home Lander (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, been in too many AFDs Atlantic306 (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  104. Support Don't see any reason why not. Home Lander (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  105. Support for, among other reasons, commendable demonstration of common sense in the General Comments section here. Thanks Lourdes. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  106. Support Per Andrew Davidson.Let's give the kid something to play with.~ Winged BladesGodric 16:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  107. Support per Andrew Davidson. If you've upset Andrew, who we should have banned for his abusive sockpuppetry, you're clearly doing lots of good for the project. Nick (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  108. Support --TJH2018talk 16:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  109. Support - I have no issues with the candidate and they strike me as intelligent and experienced enough for the bit. As others have said, she would be a great addition to the broom brigade. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  110. Support – Good answer to the question I asked, candidate is a net positive to the project. Love the hair, too. LinguistunEinsuno 17:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  111. Certo. --regentspark (comment) 17:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  112. Support as nominator (please excuse me for being late to the RfA, I was off-sick) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  113. Support Looks like a very qualified candidate. -- Dolotta (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  114. Support. Seems well-rounded and will make a good administrator. Best, SpencerT♦C 19:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  115. Support - Good contributions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  116. Support per noms. Seems to have taken on board the feedback from her last RfA and looks very well-qualified to me.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  117. Support per Andrew D. below. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  118. Support – I think you are ready now. CLCStudent (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  119. Support. In the first RfA, I was a "moral support" neutral, and I believe that she has significantly grown and improved as an editor over the past year. I don't see anything in the oppose or neutral sections to make me change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  120. Support No red lights to me so this will be a net positive. As a sidenote, I'm surprised that at this point nobody came up with the classical question regarding usernames...--Jetstreamer Talk 21:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    WP:BEANS 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  121. Support power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  122. Support -- Why not? --Church Talk 22:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  123. Support - I complained about poor oppose rationales in Lourdes' first RfA and then didn't actually vote, that seems to have been a bit of cluelessness on my part. Happy to support now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  124. Support, based on review. Kierzek (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  125. Support. Not bad! Deryck C. 00:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  126. Support. I've not interacted with her before, but having read through her earlier RfA and her answers here, I think she will be a net positive. CThomas3 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  127. Support Why not? -FASTILY 00:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  128. Support, Despite the fact that you have the same name as my dear sister, I will support you because you seem to be well prepared and therefore, I believe that you will make an excellent administrator. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  129. Support appears to be teachable, have a good dose of clue, AfD stats are very good, knows how to develop content to FA. Can't see anything negative in terms of adminship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  130. Support I have seen her making good contributions across many areas. Although we've not interacted much, when we have she's been willing to advise me, to correct me, and to thank me. I believe these are the supporting traits that all editors expect to see from any admin.( Hadn't realised Lourdes created the Page Curation Tool. Lovely - apart from that pesky, unexpandable box to write feedback in. Shame - I guess she'll now be too busy to fix that.) Nick Moyes (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  131. Support mostly per nom, partly per previous RfA. Airbornemihir (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  132. Stephen 02:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  133. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  134. Support I am impressed at how positively this editor responded to the criticism given at her previous RfA one year ago. She has improved her behavior significantly and I am now convinced that she will be a good administrator. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  135. Support Good contribs, has clue. --NeilN talk to me 04:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  136. Support. I abstained from the previous RfA because I was torn. I could see the way it was going, and couldn't find any valid reasons for adding anything even as a neutral vote. Lourdes has evolved a lot since then and and has made impressive amswers to the the user questions. Despite the comments by our resident opposer, I can't think of any reasons today why they should not be accorded the bit. In fact I think they would make an excellent admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  137. Support; no major concerns. Jc86035 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Oppose per Q10. The explanation of what is being done in such edits is weak. My impression is that the candidate goes to a random page, runs a formatting script (which one?) and then moves on. For a more recent example, see Hendrick Zwaardecroon. This page has had a clean-up tag since 2009 but the candidate ignores that, runs their script and moves on, as usual. What I'm not seeing here is any added value or appreciation of WP:COSMETICBOT. I am familiar with some other editors who love doing things like this and, in my experience, they tend to be trouble-makers; they annoy other editors more than they please them. I therefore feel the candidate needs more experience and understanding before they are given a more powerful toolset to play with. Andrew D. (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to talk page TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Too much of an inclusionist for my tastes. Cases like this, this, and this show that she distorts GNG beyond reason, seemingly accepting sources at face value. Ironically, I have more confidence in her judging consensus at an AfD than offering her own opinion. But if she offers bad opinions I can only assume she'd accept bad opinions, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. Neutral for now; want to look around and see if the issues from the previous run have been resolved.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    So far, I'm seeing good content work, good tool work, and lack of screaming matches at User talk:Lourdes; so far, so good. CfD and AfD also look good. And I like the answer to Q5, on having learned past the issues raised at the last RfA. Leaning support, pending an answer to my clarified Q6.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  2. Neutral leaning oppose. I opposed last time around, and Lourdes asked for feedback on 24 December 2017. I did a small-sample review and came across the 12 December Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fawzia Peer. It made me leery about several issues. My feedback is at User talk:Glrx#Request for feedback. Her response to my feedback troubled me further. Somehow, my small sample managed to find her "once in a year share of an unexpected slip-up". She also did not understand the interview quotation / PR release issue raised by User:Gbawden and seconded by me. I'm not sure the policy understanding is there. Sorry, but I'm pressed for time right now and do not have time for further detail or research. Glrx (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    Fawzia Peer undoubtedly fails WP:POLOUTCOMES and while, to justify keeping it under WP:BIO, not all of the sources Lourdes offered are platinum, there seems to be enough to demonstrate that this was a GF salvage effort by Lourdes, though you are correct that one or two should be discarded as PR. Were I !voting in that deletion discussion I would still have probably supported delete, however, I think it's really on the fence and there's nothing inherently unreasonable about Lourdes' position, even if it might not be one with which I probably agree. Out of a preponderance of caution, I pulled a non-representative, convenience sample of three random AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Food Waste Coalition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masters in Strategic Project Management (European), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uzair Farooq), from Lourdes' 30 most recent and in each of these I see a good !vote rationale, as opposed to vague waves, while two even have proactive identification of PR in sourcing. (Perhaps unbelievably, this really was a random pull, too - I didn't set-out looking for AfDs in which Lourdes demonstrated an ability to identify PR!) Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Awaiting answers. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
General comments
  • Noting that the !vote (currently at) 61, by User:SallyPlease, is that user's first edit to the project. I'm sure Lourdes will be flattered; but in the meantime—in other places, at least, {{spa}} would apply, at the least. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and blocked per DUCK after talking to a CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • On Q10. There seem to have been quite a lot of these edits that make no change to the appearance of the page as read. It doesn't make me want to change my support, but in view of what happens to bot operators who let their bots do that very thing, it may be an idea not to make any more edits of that sort: Noyster (talk), 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I understand. Will follow that. Lourdes 13:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)m
      • Fab. You’d honestly be surprised how many fights come up on my watchlist over people digging heels in over characters that don’t even show up in readable text. This is a wonderful breath of fresh air! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Honestly my biggest issue with that edit is that it wasn't appropriately marked as minor. Best not to click save if nothing visually changes and it's just minor whitespace, but still, nbd. ~ Amory (utc) 14:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Agreed on everything in this thread. Dekimasuよ! 20:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

About RfB

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can 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.

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