Note: Although this page is underextended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may stillcomment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go throughthis mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
Administrator elections, an alternative route to gain adminship, take place on a 5-month schedule.[1] The latest administrator election took place in July 2025, with the next election in December 2025.
About administrators
The additional features granted toadministrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions arepublicly 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 incontent disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce community consensus andArbitration Committee decisions by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
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 ishaving an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[2] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience, and those without are generallyunlikely 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 somesuccessful and someunsuccessful RfAs, or start anRfA 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 editorswilling to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might exploreadoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves toCategory:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained atWikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. TheRfA guide and theminiguide might be helpful, whileAdvice 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, followthese instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with thembefore 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 donottransclude 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.
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 byeditors with theextended confirmed right.[3] 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, withrelevant 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, ormeatpuppets. 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.Alwaysbe 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 reviewarguments 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.
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 sciencenegation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, abureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is aconsensus 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 communitydetermined thatin 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 aconsensus-building process.[4] 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".[5] 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 withWP:SNOW orWP: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 atWP: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.
In the2024 RfA review, the community authorizeddesignated 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 beinvolved 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'sbureaucrat 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 redactedand 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.[6]
Rjjiii (talk·contribs) – I'm very pleased to introduce Rjjiii for consideration. A strong content creator, he first caught my eye inWP:The Core Contest of 2024, where he won first prize with a beautiful rewrite ofNight. He now has 10 GAs and 2 FAs under his belt, including the collaboration at theRoswell incident.
The attention to detail shown in their content work is mirrored in his admin-adjacent work, particularly at AfD, where their elaborate explanations make it easy for closers to find consensus. His high match rate (99%) shows a willingness to delve deep into sourcing to assess notability (e.g. in his recent nomination atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonard (demon)). These are also skills that come in handy atDYK, where the high volume of new hooks each day means that mistakes are sometimes only noticed last minute, and can therefore only be fixed with the admin tools. He is consistently kind and friendly, as demonstrated in their reviews at FAC, GAN and their work in the Teahouse, which shows their commitment to supporting newcomers.—Femke 🐦 (talk)18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nomination statement
Rjjiii– that’s one R, two Js, and three Is– has been a consistently excellent editor and one I’m proud to be co-nominating. RJ’s work particularly around identifying reliable sources and removing long standing poorly sourced text demonstrates a strong content sensibility useful for admin work. Like Femke, he first appeared on my radar for their rewrite ofNight, an article I had always wanted to fix up but never got around to due to the overwhelming research required due to it being such a “general” topic. Under RJ, the article went from afew jumbled under sourced paragraphs and spare trivia to anextensively sourced article bordering on FA quality– a literal night and day difference! The time RJ providesinto his work is truly impressive. This thorough mindset goes beyond article writing; Rj has considerable experience around AfD voting andtemplate editor related work, including maintaining citation templates and vetting and promoting DYK hooks. His contributions talk page interactions and discussion contributions show a calm demeanor and responsiveness when questioned. I’m convinced Rjjiii will be as excellent of an admin as they are an editor and hope the community joins in supporting.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)18:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, and I've not edited for pay. I have one other account,User:Rjjiii (ii), mainly for mobile testing.
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: It would be an extension of some of the work I already do. To pitch in at Did You Know (DYK), I havepromoted over 200 hooks to DYK'sprep areas, written overa dozen nominations, flagged unresolved issues on approved DYK nominations, and responded to errors onthe Main Page. Hooks near the Main Page require admin permissions to fix. They also require experience with DYK processes, guidelines, and technical workings, which I already have.I have also worked in many aspects of the deletion processes. I have !voted or commented inover a hundred deletion discussions,closed dozens of Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussions, wasthanked for a merge close with a detailed closing statement, and have completely rewritten articles at AfD, likeInstagram face. MyAfD !votes match the outcome the vast majority of the time.The admin tools would allow me to take on additional roles in those two broad areas. In deletion discussions, I could delete and undelete articles. At the moment, I close discussions at TfD and orphan template transclusions, but still have to rely on other admins to delete the templates. I would also be able to directly resolve Main Page issues reported atWP:ERRORS, and in the DYK areas that are fully protected before being transcluded to the Main Page.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A:Leroy Chollet is a featured biography where I am the primary author. When I first googled him, the Wikipedia article wasonly a stub. While researching, I expanded the article and took it throughGood article,Did you know, andFeatured article reviews. I have10 GAs including some on broader topics, likenight which I rewrote during the2024 Core Contest for Vital Articles.My work on the{{Historical populations}} template is probably relevant for advanced permissions; I implemented a consensus contrary to my own proposal. After fixing the template's appearance for current themes, editorsreported issues on the older themes it was originally written for. A revert would not display theformer style for most readers, so we discussed it on the talk page. I worked out a technical solution to restore the template's visual style. This preserved the intended style on the old desktop themes, but it also worked on mobile devices, the new desktop theme, the app, and dark mode.
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 handle conflicts mainly by staying focused on the content and leaning on the policies and sources. For example, I worked mainly with a couple of experienced editors to get theRoswell incident article up toFA status. Working with two experienced editors with differing views where one person is challenging inclusion of content and one challenging exclusion of content has improved my own skills with writing and research beyond just Wikipedia. You can find adetailed chart in the archives where I did a lengthy analysis of which conspiracy theories were covered by whichreliable sources in order to determineWP:DUEWEIGHT in the article.Theonly time I was reported to the administrator's noticeboard for incidents (ANI) was regarding theWestall UFO article, when a newer editor was attempting to add material against policies and guidelines. On the article's talk page, Icited and quoted the relevant portions ofWP:NPOV,WP:FRINGE, andWP:V. The other editor argued for a reversed interpretation of Wikipedia policies, but consensus at ANI supported my approach. In the future, I'll continue to lean on policies and sources to direct concerns towards the encyclopedic content rather than interpersonal conflicts.
You may ask optional questions below. There is alimit oftwo 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-five section headers, not boldface.
4. Our paths seldom cross, I think primarily because the admin areas we are in don't usually overlap. Are there any other admin areas that you would like work in?
A: Those two areas are where I would start. Beyond that,Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (AIV) interests me, but I'd first seek more experience as a regular editor. I've reported about a dozen vandalism-only accounts at AIV and have experience withTwinkle andgeneric rollback. However, that's not enough experience to fully evaluate when a block is needed, so I'd continue to make reports to better understand the process.I could also help with fully protected edit requests atWikipedia:Dashboard#Requested_edits when there is a backlog, although there is usually a greater backlog for the template-protected requests. I have implementedstraightforward andcomplex edit requests on protected templates.
5. The Roswell incident is a fascinating subject, congratulations on bringing it up to FA, that is a great achievement! When writing articles, I've found that I enjoy it more when I have a fervent interest in the subject. Is this the case for the articles you have created and researched, and will you continue to work on and create articles once you become an administrator? Best of luck to you!
A: First, let me share some credit with my collaborators. (They are welcome to name themselves below if they wish, though I don't want to extend RfA scrutiny to editors who didn't sign up for it.) I would likely not have gotten involved if there had not been another editor already trying to expand and improve the article. Beyond formal credits, several editors dropped by to clean up, tag errors, give feedback on the talk page, and help rewrite whole sections in a subpage.Second, absolutely! Any topic is much easier when there's interest, and, yes, I plan to continue writing after becoming an administrator. I hope to bring the Ottoman corsair/cartographerPiri Reis up to FA status in the future. Also, I forage as a hobby, and have been reading about the Eastern Agricultural Complex plants that were farmed in North America before the introduction of maize and beans. Some, like maygrass and lambsquarters, should be growing wild in Louisiana this coming spring, and hopefully I can tie that interest into their articles.
6. Although this is my first time knowing you, I found that you have an amazing record of bringing articles to GAs, likeNight4. How would you describe the process of sourcing, MOS, etc. in bringing such general topics to a good article? More specifically, how do you filter reliable sources?
A: This depends on what's available. To find NPOV's "due weight", I start by looking for high-quality sources about the topic of the article: university press books, published books from experts, literature reviews in journals, or reference articles. Continuing withNight as an example, there's an excellent book for both sourcing and due weight on the "History" section: Roger Ekirch'sAt Day's Close. For the "Biology" sections, I ran into the issue where most booksabout night overall, or even just the biology of night, were written for a younger audience. This suggested writing at least the article's first paragraph as approachable to even a middle school reader, though those weren't citable sources. It's not visible from the actual article, but for that section I used several high-quality documentaries to determine due weight. I let them play while taking paper notes and used the common topics to search viaWikipedia Library for sources that were peer-reviewed althoughmore specific. MOS shouldn't be too different between broad and narrow topic articles, since it's meant to give consistency across the encyclopedia.
A: Those are just my initials. When I made an account, I didn't think about anybody having to read or type them. I've tried to format my signature a bit to make it easier:Rjjiii (talk)
8. What are your thoughts on artificial intelligence being used to edit Wikipedia, especially among newer users?
A: It's complicated, which is why I imagine policy creation for AI content is moving slowly. The current types of generative AI work with language, not facts. This means that the more linguistic a task is, the more helpful the AI can be. For some examples, Google Translate uses aneural machine translation system, and Grammarly alarge language model (LLM). To an extent, you can use a chatbot-style LLM for linguistic tasks like checking MOS compliance or explaining uncommented code.AI will fail when given more fact-based or research-heavy tasks. This makes them nearly useless for creating content because:
Hallucinations are an inherent result of how LLMs create plausible content without knowing the facts.
An LLM does not know when it plagiarizes. When I tested a Gemini prompt that another editor suggested for fact-checking on theKitab-ı Bahriye article, I found that the AIcopied portions of its answer from another Wikipedia article without attribution. This goes hand in hand with the tendency to cite non-existent sources. An editor unfamiliar with the possible sources on a topic wouldn't have a way to catch when an LLM fabricates and plagiarizes sources.
A problem for new editors, in particular, is that they will see more AI advertising hype than Wikipedia discussions about why the current generative AI models cannot create encyclopedic content. A new editor creating an article entirely from LLM output may legitimately not realize how this can be disruptive. Earlier this month another editor and Icleaned up an article on a notable individual that seemed to be the result of someone running their notes through an LLM.
9. Outside of Wikipedia, have you ever held positions analogous to adminship, i.e. involving the trust of a great deal of people, and the exercise of authority not granted everyone involved, including taking adverse actions? You can discuss details to the extent you feel comfortable doing so.
A:
10. If you have that experience, how would it inform your use of the admin tools?
11. I was going to ask about your account name but I see that's covered above. But your user page is a bit light on personal information so I'd like to know you better. I see that thelead picture on your user page is aWoodie and I'm curious about that as my father had aUK equivalent. I suppose the picture mainly illustrates your preference for fixing up existing articles but is there anything more to it please?
Please keep discussion constructive andcivil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly reviewtheir contributions before commenting.
Numerated (#) "votes" in the "Support", "Oppose", and "Neutral" sections may only be placed by editors with anextended confirmed account. All other comments are welcome in the "general comments" section.
Support: It's rare that a candidate has so capably contributed content in such controversial subject areas and has demonstrated such steadiness. It's especially rare to see the same editor have such a clear use for the tools. Good luck with the mop! ~Pbritti (talk)19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surprising amount of work, and I see his brilliant efforts in rewriting articles and having the exceptional amount of patience to do the proper research and sourcing. As nom has said, I am astounded by his work atNight4, sosupport.HwyNerdMike(tokk)22:47, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The candidate has done some incredible writing I was especially impressed at their listed best contribution it is a night and day difference. They also have a great record at afd with very detailed !votes and a high match rate. I have no doubt they will do a great job as an Admin.GothicGolem29 (talk)02:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent candidate. A 99% match rate at AfD that doesn't consist of pile-on votes, but is instead over multiple months is unheard of! Also gave a great answer to my question (5) and I respect that they started by first giving credit to their collaborators! I wish them well and look forward to hopefully interacting with them on the project in the future!11WB (talk)02:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I am very satisfied with the nominator's responses, ranging from content creation to administrative duties. I mean, their contribution toNight is already impressive, but their explanation of the writing process is superb and in-depth (in fact, this gives me the confidence to rewriteArchimedes' screw, an article I've been thinking about for a while now). They can also handle disputes professionally and maturely, which is vital for an admin. All the best :)Icepinner08:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Such a well-qualified candidate! My only small quibble is that their (certain) appointment as an admin may lose the project a most excellent writer and editor as the multitude of needs requiring an admin might well begin to occupy much of their time. That's not a qualification of my support, just a small note of (potential) future regret for what might have been.C'est la vie, as the saying goes.Geoff |Who, me?17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see another request for adminship so soon after the last(especially given how long there was between the previous one and the RFA before that.)GothicGolem29 (talk)15:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which theWikipedia community decides who will becomebureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights inlimited circumstances. They can also grant or removebot 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. ~~~~}}
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions atWikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives,before seeking this position.
Whilecanvassing 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 onTemplate:Centralized discussion.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
^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.
.jpg){kind=link}