Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Edit links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:MONITOR)

"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
Sennecaster 202 0 0 100 Open 17:20, 25 December 2024 2 days, 20 hours no report
Current time is 20:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
Sennecaster 202 0 0 100 Open 17:20, 25 December 2024 2 days, 20 hours no report
Current time is 20:40, 22 December 2024 (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 took place in October 2024.

About administrators

The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings 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 %
Hog Farm2 RfA Successful 22 Dec 2024 179 14 12 93
Graham872 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
Worm That Turned2 RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91

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

Nomination standards

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

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

Nominations

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

Notice of RfA

Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}} on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en.

Expressing opinions

All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account.[2] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

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. 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 20:40:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

Sennecaster

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (202/0/0); Scheduled to end 17:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Monitors: Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

Sennecaster (talk · contribs) – It is my great pleasure to finally present Sennecaster as an admin candidate. This is a long-overdue nomination of an editor who, if successful, will bring an immediate benefit to the encyclopedia in the area of copyright cleanup.

Senne's talent for handling difficult administrative tasks is evident in her copyright work, where not only does she deal with the day-to-day effort of actual copyright cleanup, but actively works to make the area easier to work in for everyone else. She is almost single-handedly responsible for a complete rewrite of the previously confusing process at Copyright problems, making it far more streamlined and editor-friendly. She has led the way in reducing redundancy by phasing out tags like {{cv-unsure}} and merging the two sets of copyright clerks into one. Finally, Senne has demonstrated her commitment to mentorship by training all three of the copyright clerks who have volunteered within the past few years.

If she ever gets tired of copyright issues, I'm certain that Senne will bring her ability to act decisively but conscientiously to other administrative areas. Outside of copyright, she processes requested moves, slogs through backlogs like unreferenced articles, works on cross-wiki file maintenance, and occasionally dips her toes in at AfC. She has been an active VRT agent for over two years. Her PROD log is small, but shows a 100% success rate, and her logs show that she uses CSD and XfD with similar judiciousness.

I hope you will agree with me that Senne is exactly the kind of person who should be trusted to have the admin tools. I have no doubt that Senne will be an even stronger asset to the project as an administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination statement

Every once in a while, you come across a candidate who doesn't just have a need for the tools, but a compelling case for why the project needs them to have the tools. Well, Sennecaster is absolutely one of those candidates! She has a ton of experience at CCI, a project that needs new admins very, truly badly. (Go look at how long the oldest case has been open for.) Sennecaster is among the most tenured copyright clerks on the project and specializes in some of the trickiest and least accessible cases, like copyright violations from offline sources, close paraphrasing, and translation copying. With the tools, she could not only take her own revdels off other admin's plates, she could handle other requests in the copyright area that could use a more experienced eye.

Outside of copyright, Senne does lots of other good work for the project. She takes up lots of actions from requested moves, including technical requests and discussion closes, and helps out with VRT, PROD, and and AfC. She's also written a GA, Through the Darkest of Times, and while it's on the shorter side as GAs go, I'm impressed with how it handles some fairly controversial content and puts together a very good reception section from the available reviews.

Sennecaster and I have had many interactions through our time on Wikipedia, coming from roughly the same class of editors who came here because of the pandemic and stayed here because of the opportunity to do something useful and rewarding. I've always found her to be thoughtful, fresh, courteous, and insightful, the best qualities we could ask for in a new admin 😄 a long overdue candidacy I'm proud (and very excited!) to be a part of. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: The fine print: I have not and will never edit for pay, and I have 1 (so far) unused alt account that is disclosed to ArbCom. I accept this nomination. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (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've spent the past 3 1⁄2 years mostly in copyright cleanup, and I have run into many situations where my work on an article, listing, or file is halted because it needs an admin to do something that not many admins are familiar with. My copyright work that would use admin tools is deleting articles unsalvageable but not clearly unambiguous, presumptive deletions after 7 days, RD1ing removals, moving rewrites, and more rarely, blocking people that have repeatedly violated without improvement. The bus factor is extremely low in copyright for the amount of work to do; there are only about three other people besides me that routinely check and clear listings at CPN, and most of our copyright admins are currently busy elsewhere both offline and online. Additionally, a lot of moves at RMTR don’t need a swap, since the history is redirect targeting, and a better use of time would be to G6 delete and move into place.
The laundry list: Processing copyright problems and CCIs, RD1, doing histmerges off of WP:NHML, un-revdelling files that were once fair use but later determined to be PD to transfer them to Commons, CSD F8, F9, F11, G12, and db-moves. The short answer: Continuing what I enjoy doing here, but with extra buttons. :)
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best work is in copyright cleanup. I started clerking WP:CP a little over 3 years ago, and I’m proud to have participated in some major cleanups like Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727 and WP:CCI/IEP. These two cases in particular were massive time sinks to our community; the first one I completed a majority of the image portion and overall took a 12 year effort from copyright cleanup members, and the second was an equally-longrunning CCI on a university program that unfortunately encouraged widespread copying from textbooks. I am also proud of Through the Darkest of Times, which I created and took to GA. I learned plenty about writing reviews and better understood how to navigate quotation usage in those sections.
I have been a VRT agent since 2022, doing mostly permissions queues but also replying to info-en at times. I am happy with how I’ve helped people with photo permissions or resolved their concerns, even if I can’t share the specifics.
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've had disagreements with editors both over content decisions and copyright matters, and I use a lot of strategies to keep the discussion cool. I like to give myself at least 10 minutes between reading someone disagreeing with me and responding to have time to get past my initial reaction. In content discussions like an RM, I try to stick to the rule of only replying if I have a point I’d like someone to consider that hasn’t been brought up in the discussion at all or if I’ve been replied to myself.
At copyright problems, there’s a lot of gray area for how an issue can be handled, and I'm always willing to admit and revise when I've made a mistake. My approach tends to fall along the lines of what happened at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 September 18; a user disagreed with my judgment, so I re-checked the article and issue, and we went back and forth as we figured out what options were available. We concluded that a rewrite/BLAR was best.

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.

Optional question from Conyo14

4. You obviously have a lot of passion in the copyright sector of Wikipedia, but are there any other topics/subjects you enjoy editing too (i.e. Science, sports, politics, etc.)
A: Both of my created articles are on indie or small studio video games, and I suspect that as I play more indie games that have a lot of sources, I'll probably create/expand those articles too. In the future, I want to search and attain print RS for Celtic music so I can expand out that topic significantly. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from Espresso Addict

5. Are you open to changing your signature? My first thought was that the pinkish red on the talk page link meant that it was red-linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: Of course, done so. I actually randomly generate the hex codes and adjust them to meet contrast accessibility, so I'm not attached to the colors at all. I've always had a note that I'm happy to change my signature colors if they're unreadable or confusing, and that won't go away now. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm curious, could you write further about what is it that makes you so engaged with copyright work? My perception is that non-admins (not to mention most admins) don't often get involved in this area, or at least not so deeply. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: I was recommended to try CCI pretty early on and really liked the investigating of sources and copyright status. I like the steady process and wide range of topics I read about, but now it's also fuelled by a sense of responsibility. I picked up copyright problems because there wasn't a lot of people clearing old listings, for one. In a more lighthearted response, "intense desire to solve problem" to quote something PMC said to me. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Hawkeye7

7. On your user talk page you say that you support copyright reform. What reforms would you like to see? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A: Copyright has a lot of valid reasons to exist, but I have a lot of issue with the length and scope. There are works that are copyrighted for upwards of 150 years, and only a few works ever make profit compared to what is published. Compare to patents which have a 20 year limit. I would prefer a more radical change to publish+50 rule, but PMA+25 is more realistic. Expanding FOP in as many countries as possible to include buildings at a minimum (looking at you, France and the Philippines), and increasing the threshold of originality in Commonwealth countries are other things that would broadly benefit more people. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from CanonNi

8. This RfA is almost certainly gonna pass, so here's a lighthearted question: where does your username come from?
A: I used a random name generator off of FNG (don't remember which one) and came up with this username by mashing together two results. There's no specific meaning to it, I just liked the sound of it. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from Cordless Larry

9. I see from your user page that you're an advocate of open research and open access. Scholarly and official publications being available on an open-access basis can make the work of Wikipedia editors much easier. What is your view on how the verbatim text from an open-access publication that is available under a Wikipedia-compatible CC license should be used appropriately on Wikipedia, if at all? By that, I don't mean is it allowed, but rather what considerations should go into a decision about whether and how the text is used?
A: Compatibly licensed material can be useful, but like we caution in VRT, it may not always comply with our other policies and guidelines. I think my biggest considerations boil down to neutrality, consensus, and complexity. For instance, a research paper may be compatibly licensed and otherwise summarize scholarly consensus, but it is too POV for us to verbatim copy. In that case, it would be inappropriate to reuse without careful copyediting. We could have a very neutrally-worded paper, but it doesn't reflect current consensus. We would have to be careful with what exactly we copy or if we copy at all. Lastly, we have to make sure that Wikipedia articles are understandable by a layperson. If a paper is technically dense and requires subject expertise, it isn't appropriate to verbatim copy into Wikipedia. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from TrademarkedTWOrantula

10. I was gonna ask about your motivation for investigating copyright violations, but that's already been done. Instead, I'll ask this: How often and how long do you take breaks from Wikipedia?
A: I take breaks when two things happen; IRL takes precedence, or I find myself not enjoying editing as much. Both situations don't have a strict pattern of timing or length, but I both need time and the right mindset to edit and I will take as long as required for both. Within the last two years I've made sure to be consistent with replying even when in lower activity and I never lost track of major changes in my area, so YMMV if that constitutes as a proper break, but clearing copyright listings and doing complex investigations gets put on short holds every so often. Sennecaster (Chat) 06:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review her 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. First! 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Overdue :). Full confidence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Obviously ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fuck yes charlotte 👸🎄 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Queen of Hearts please redact the offensive part of that. If you were on the oppose side and wrote the "no" version of that, I believe it would be struck as incivil. The same should apply here. RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm torn between (a) hoping this RFA doesn't get sidetracked by a pointless argument that has nothing to do with the candidate, and (b) a morbid desire to finally see a threaded discussion of a support get moved to the talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a longstanding community consensus that there is no blanket prohibition on using naughty words. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I said "fuck no", that would be inappropriate, yes, but I don't think "fuck yes" is. Happy to strike or be struck if several people/a monitor think it's inappropriate. Re. Floq, I think a support got moved to talk at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Night Watch because it referenced God or something like that? Going off the top of my head. charlotte 👸🎄 23:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote "fcking finally" and raised no ire, so perhaps you could change your vote to "Fck yes"? Or would it be "Fck s"? Not sure if the letter e is allowed. -- asilvering (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thnk t wld b "Fck ys", f y'r rmvng ll f th vwls lk n bjd. – ddhhr tlkcntrbsshhr 19:29, 19 Dcmbr 2024 (TC)
    Yes, that would be this comment and this discussion — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No candidate is free from Eris ✶Quxyz✶ 18:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of the standards for monitor action, I do not see a basis to remove or redact this comment, as it does not contain significant policy violations and is not a blockable offense. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure there is a long-standing consensus that using swear words is not a policy violation by itself. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Sennecaster is a treasure to Wikipedia and I would be exceptionally glad to have her competent and dedicated self among the admin corps. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. A competent, friendly, level-headed editor I trust with the tools. Sdkb talk 17:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I trust Sennecaster with the tools. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good impressions when dealing with CLOP and similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sure. EF5 17:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Very enthusiastically! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: I've seen her cv related edits and expect she will make great use of the tools there. Nobody (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, very competent editor and fit for the job! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support genuinely thought this was another reconfirmation RFA at first, lol. Obviously support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Dealing with copyright issues is a complex but important area for Wikipedia and I have great respect for those who roll up their sleeves and get stuck in to what can be something of a thankless task! I have only peripheral dealings with the candidate but I trust the judgement of the nominators and if they say she'll make a great admin, that's good enough for me. Neiltonks (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. LGTM. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support thank you for standing. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support ULPS (talk • contribs) 18:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "I've spent the past 3 1⁄2 years mostly in copyright cleanup" Yikes. I guess what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Need for the tools + has clue + not a jerk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. The trope of "Wait, this user isn't already an admin?" has at this stage been used so many times it's basically become a part of RfA itself, but Sennecaster is a shining example of that trope. Thrilled to support, ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support The fact that working in CCI for that long hasn't turned Sennecaster into the Joker is a strong enough reason to hand over the tools. Plus, she's been unfailingly civil and level-headed in all our personal interactions. — GhostRiver 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: Exceptionally excited to see someone willing to take up the mop within the copyright space. The nomination statements are probably the most convincing I've seen. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support absolutely, without reservation. A clueful and kind editor — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Senne has been an asset in the Copyright area for years and has engineered a lot of great reform and change in the field. She is intelligent and hardworking, and I have no doubts of her ability to effectively use the tools. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per noms. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per noms and my general sense of seeing the username around. Skynxnex (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support: Without a doubt, a highly qualified individual who I was also willing to nominate. PLEASE SO THEY STOP ASKING ME TO DO HISTMERGES! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should restart CCIing so there's another person to ask you. We need to keep those skills sharp... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 17:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support jp×g🗯️ 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Kind, polite, and thoroughly qualified. Giraffer (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support; they have done excellent work in the copyright area. Hog Farm Talk 19:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support One of the only times I can't say "Wait, this user isn't already an admin", because I know her from CP/CCI. Excellent work in copyright, and we always need more copyright admins. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Long overdue. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Fcking finally. No admin who handles CSDs, RD1s, pdels, or histmerges is going to say "what, weren't they already an admin", because we've all been pestering her to run for ages so she can stop giving us more work to do. -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
  35. Support Fully convinced by the nominators and a review of the user's history. Thanks for doing the thankless work! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Enthusiastic support. Candidate has both the willingness and the skill to handle complicated but necessary tasks. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. been waiting for this one! ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Great candidate. Obvious need for the tools. Good luck! –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support We have an obvious need for administrators skilled in copyright issues, so that alone a strong plus. I am not a gamer but Through the Darkest of Times is an interesting read and very well done, indicating that the editor is a capable content creator. In the General comments section, we have an informal recommendation by an IP editor which I believe should be given a lot of weight. Cullen328 (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  40. —Ingenuity (t • c) 20:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Per 81.2.123.64. Perfect4th (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support When I say I've had this watchlisted for months. Senecaster is great. She's taught me pretty much everything about copyright I haven't learnt through osmosis, and just in general has given me really great advice. She does what I believe is the some of the most important content work possible- turning a variety of completely unusable masses of close paraphrasing and copyvios filled with original research, plagiarism, and opinions, ect, into proper Wikipedia articles that our readers and content reusers can rely on. I have no reservations. She'll be great at adminning! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Thanks for volunteering. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Would be great to have another copyright admin around! The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 21:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 21:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per the IP editor in the general comments. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Yes, absolutely--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Sennecaster will be an even greater asset to the community as an administrator. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  50. (edit conflict) Support Unless I'm getting my names mixed up, I first convinced her to install RedWarn, and she was the one who first made me know what CCI is. She was also quite involved in getting that seriously understaffed project its own channel in the Wikipedia Discord server, and is perhaps the reason why it has been kept afloat for the past three years. No concerns. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support - Fuck yes. Copyright cleanup needs the toolbox, for sure. I personally don't think CCI uses a methodology that scales, but as long as we're going to pretend to use that heavily and insolubly backlogged mechanism, we need many more people. Carrite (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support LGTM. Ternera (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support A solid candidate who works in a particularly difficult area that has already been mastered. They will be an asset. No problem supporting. scope_creepTalk 23:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  54. So incredibly over due. So pleased to see this finally happening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Impressed by the CCI work. Has the experience needed to be an admin. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 23:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support- Absolutely without reservations. Good Luck!   Aloha27  talk  23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support — Would be a very good copyvio admin. No concerns at all. Styyx (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support civil, has clue. Yes, please. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support I am very familiar with Sennecaster's contributions to Wikipedia. I have found her to be very competent and a strong net positive. My only problem is that she didn't run sooner. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support - Their contributions to copyright problems alone given how understaffed it is make this candidate, in my eyes, more than deserving of the tools. In the years I've lurked the backrooms and seen this user act and speak, I have seen nothing that makes me feel granting the toolkit is anything but a net positive to the project. —Sirdog (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I haven't interacted much with Sennecaster but this is a very strong RFA - really competent in an understaffed area, and a lot of editors I really respect are going crazy with support. An IP editor below has attested that she takes account the thoughts of new accounts/anonymous editors. She even records spoken audio versions of articles?? Overall looks to me like a no brainer - big support BugGhost 🦗👻 00:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support never interacted with them, unfortunately, but they seem like a good editor + I trust the noms. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 00:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Fuck, yes! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  65. [He]ck yes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Competent. Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Frost 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Of course :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - and thanks for everything you do! Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support; [redacted] yes! Kline • talk • contribs 02:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Top candidate, with the case only strenghtened by the IP note below. Schwede66 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Appears to know what they are doing - as evidenced by deleted contribs and logs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - clear need for tools, not a jerk, has a clue, etc. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Fricklefrackle yes. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Yes, of course. — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Always was helpful and friendly when I worked on a CCI case years back. Glad to see her nominated. Yeeno (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Excellent candidate and I’m sure they’ll make a worthy admin. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Why not? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support I've heard nothing but overwhelming positivity, I look forward to you becoming an admin. Cheers! Johnson524 04:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Tarlby (t) (c) 05:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, lot of copyright work. ~🌀 Ampil 「💬 / 📝」 05:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Easiest Support I can think of. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support per noms, agree with them. I've never interacted with this user before but having a look at their contributions and talk page, I think this user will be a great administrator to Wikipedia. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Senne is well reasoned in their takes and is someone I have asked to RFA before. I think they'll be an excellent addition to the Admin corps. Soni (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Good people vouching for her and I like the answers to the questions. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Justiyaya 06:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I offered Sennecaster a nomination more than a year ago based on their even temperament and contributions to CCI, and found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that I had been pre-empted. I'm glad the time has come. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support because finally! LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  91. I support this absolute copyright-compliance machine. Thank you for keeping Wikipedia safe and within legal bounds, especially in an era of unprecedented legal challenges. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 07:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Hameltion (talk | contribs) 07:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Would make as a great admin given her experience working in copyright area and her positive attitude. Galaxybeing (talk) 08:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support seen you in so many places, I thought you were already an admin. You do great work, very easy support! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  95. per above ~ LindsayHello 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Volten001 ☎ 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. MER-C 11:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Willing to help with copyright issues, and good at it? Please, take a mop! Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support no concerns. Rzuwig► 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  100. no concerns Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Absolutely! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Never interacted with this candidate but I trust Theleekycauldron. Maliner (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support! We need new admins, especially ones who are passionate about the boring things. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 13:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Net positive. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 13:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support no concerns and needs the toolkit. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support – Ammarpad (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Full support.--A09|(talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support That's A LOT of support in a short amount time. Anyways, the candidate will clearly bring improvement to the project. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support! FifthFive (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Thank you for volunteering! Not many questions to base my vote off of, but helpful feedback from other supporters and clearly done great work with CCI. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support an extremely knowledgeable editor and a great help,I have no doubts about Sennecaster's ability. Reconrabbit 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - an outstanding candidate who will make an excellent admin. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  115. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support, without a doubt. Senne is one of the most proficient and experienced editors in copyright cleanup and mediation on the project; where I or others have had issues, she has been invariably helpful and even-tempered. With her front- and back-of-house contributions, I have no doubt that she will be an great admin :) – Isochrone (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support: lots of respect for this kind of work, great job on it Peachseltzer (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support, had positive interactions, does CCI work. Sohom (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support from Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - looks good to me. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support: About Damn Time. Guess I'll have to stop nagging her about it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Truly a splendid candidate. Thank you for stepping forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support – Very good, extensive work in copyright-related areas, and great work in general administrative/content areas too. Would be a great administrator. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Looks good. Doesn't necessarily mean that they have the experience to get into established editor conduct issues but I trust they would proceed accordingly. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Another example of a candidate who should have run much earlier, in my opinion. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny, I can think of at least one other one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are epic geniuses out there who would benefit the project by having the tools. We just have to find them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: But we don't know their username! How will we ever find them? Polygnotus (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Copyright is an area in desperate need of attention, and Sennecaster is one of the best editors equipped to deal with it. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 00:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Fr*ck yes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support per nom. Morris80315436 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. A thoughtful and detail-oriented editor, who will be a thoughtful and detail-oriented administrator. Good deal. — penultimate_supper 🚀 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Fuck yes Noah, BSBATalk 02:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Normally I prefer my candidates to have done more article writing themselves, but Sennecaster appears to do careful work on copyvios and educating new editors about close paraphrasing, and would benefit from the admin tools. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Just joining on in the bandwagon. Seems like a fine admin candidate overall tho. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support will be a net positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  135. 'Fuck yes'Abo Yemen✉ 06:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  136. —Kusma (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support per noms. Renerpho (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  138. GrabUp - Talk 09:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Hell yeah! Loooooong overdue... Toadspike [Talk] 11:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - another no brainer. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. I checked their editing history, and I didn't find any issues. Congratulations in advance! Baqi:) (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Chlod (say hi!) 12:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support, looks to have done good work in an important and often neglected area - Dumelow (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  144. No concerns Girth Summit (blether) 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support Uschoen (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support SWinxy (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support As a die hard of FOSS, when I see the words 'copyright' my heart sinks as a natural reaction. However having looked at Sennecaster's editing history, and how many have vouched for her, I feel confident that she will be a positive addition to the administrator team. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Copyright savvy admins are needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Absolutely. Mox Eden (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Yeah! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. Can't say this is a name I am used to seeing in my area of work a lot, but seems to have a clear use for the tools, a good head on her shoulders, and the support of some editors who I trust. I see no reason for not trusting with the tools, and look forward to having another admin working in a much needed area! Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support, with pleasure. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. Trust the nominators, and Sennecaster looks like a great candidate. Malinaccier (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Definitely needs the tools, seems overall pleasant, and I trust the nominators. As an aside, I'm particularly tickled by the admins showing up to support so that she can do the work herself instead of asking other people to do it. Need for tools doesn't get much clearer than that! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. Clear benefit for the project. Loopy30 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Happy with the answer to Question 7. Have not seen her around, look forward to doing so in future. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Several reasons why Senne is a great person has been established already, so that I do not need to talk too much ;) This is not a matter of "no brainer" or "net-positive" or "no big deal". Senne has been an administrator without tools long before I came across her. Adminship is not an accomplishment, so I won't say "congrats", but I have confidence she is "ready" to do the job. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support as I really like everything I am reading about this user. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support. Thank you for your work! Tvpuppy (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  163. yes frack. absolutely no problems here Aaron Liu (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support We need more admins in this area, and it seems that this person would be helpful in that role. – notwally (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support—11/10 would vote again – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support—Kurtis (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - Excellent candidate, knows her stuff.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support I recognise the name and Sennecaster seem sensible so candidates meets my RFA criteria.©Geni (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support clear need for the tools. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Good one. Regards, Aafi (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Now we can hopefully have a dedicated histmerge admin. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Trustworthy candidate who will benefit the project with the tools. SpencerT•C 05:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Enthusiastic support. I've done some work in copyright cleanup and I've seen Sennecaster's work up close. She's hardworking, very competent, and cool-headed and was an excellent mentor when I first started dipping my toes into CCI. Definitely someone who deserves the admin toolset and can put it to good use. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 07:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  175. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. No reason to oppose this RfA. Will be a net benefit. Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 14:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. Excellent track record at CCI – always great to have more admins there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. Great work so far and clearly fills a need! Jordano53 16:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support - knowledgeable, trustworthy, will make a great admin. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support- knows what they're doing. Bastique ☎ call me! 17:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support No reason to oppose this The AP (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  183. C F A 19:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  184. I got as far as reading PMC's signature and that was enough for me. Mkdw talk 21:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - Well-qualified editor. Thanks for your continued efforts with copvios. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support great editor. Lots of positive interactions with this editor and wish them well with the mop bucket. -- JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support, and thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  188. SilverLocust 💬 03:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support. No problems I can see, clearly a net positive, and handily already devoted to patroling an area in which we need more administrative attention on a regular basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support No issues with me. – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Happy to get newbie admin. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 07:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support copyleft? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Pile on support There just aren't enough admins dealing with copyvios. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support - Great candidate, trustworthy, competent, good disposition. Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Would be great to have more administrators experienced in copyright issues. Bogazicili (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support and thanks for answering my question. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  197. ResonantDistortion 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Fucking Yeah! Great candidate to have the mop. Abzeronow (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support This editor is one of the best and most helpful I've seen. Unconditional support. Wozal (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support Leijurv (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Neutral
General comments
  • I am extremely curious about the lack of opposes from the "Content Creator" bunch, as the candidate only has two article creations, and neither are an FA.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too; RfAs from users who are willing to work in copyright-related areas are often, if not always, free of any opposes for some reason; currently it will be listed at wp:RFX200. Some odd pattern out there.... ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very clearly delineated area of work that is heavily backlogged and can be worked on by a normal editor through the tools available while requesting admin help frequently. The need is much more clearly demonstrated than some other RfAs where the stated goal may be generally "to help out where other people aren't, since I'm pretty experienced". Reconrabbit 20:27, 22 December 2024 (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 an extended confirmed account 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1264553776#Monitors"