Gratispaideia:Requests for adminship/Header

Current time is, (UTC). —

The Gratispaideia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops) through the process of Request for adminship (RfA). These users can have access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance of the project. Users can either nominate themselves for adminship or be nominated by other users. Before submitting your request, please read the guide to requests for adminship. This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are thought to necessitate a high level of community trust. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators in the same way that other edits can, administrators' actions involve features that have the potential to affect the entire site. Administrators are in charge of blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages, among other things.

About RfA
Trusted users are granted administrator access by the community, so nominees should have spent enough time on Gratispaideia for others to assess their trustworthiness. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because they are frequently sought out for assistance and advice by other editors, and they have access to tools that, if misused, can have a negative impact on users or content.


 * Having an account on Gratispaideia is the only formal requirement for adminship. However, because editing the RfA page is restricted to extended confirmed users, editors without one risk having their RfA subpage transcluded by someone who does. This is because the community believes that editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days of experience are unlikely to gain adminship. Candidates are judged on a number of factors by the community, and debate can be heated.
 * 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. The RfA guide on English Wikipedia might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
 * 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. The RfA guide on English Wikipedia 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.
 * 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 on their userpages. RfAs are also to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and, as per community consensus. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain).


 * All Gratispaideians—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 Gratispaideia, 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 leave a comment, go to the candidate's page and click the "Voice your opinion" link. In your comments, always be respectful of others. Constructive criticism will aid the candidate in making necessary adjustments and may help them perform better in a future RfA. However, the community has given bureaucrats permission to clerk at RfA so that they can deal with comments and/or!votes that they deem inappropriate. Many Gratispaideians flock to the RfA process, and some editors may routinely oppose many or most requests, while other editors may routinely support many or most requests. Although the community now supports the right of every Gratispaideian with an account to vote, some have labeled one-sided approaches to RfA voting as "trolling." Consider whether others are likely to treat your comment as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with unusual rationales or that feel like "baiting"). Make every effort not to add fuel to the fire. Remember that the bureaucrats who end discussions have a lot of experience and give constructive comments more weight than unproductive ones.
 * To leave a comment, go to the candidate's page and click the "Voice your opinion" link. In your comments, always be respectful of others. Constructive criticism will aid the candidate in making necessary adjustments and may help them perform better in a future RfA. However, the community has given bureaucrats permission to clerk at RfA so that they can deal with comments and/or!votes that they deem inappropriate. Many Gratispaideians flock to the RfA process, and some editors may routinely oppose many or most requests, while other editors may routinely support many or most requests. Although the community now supports the right of every Gratispaideian with an account to vote, some have labeled one-sided approaches to RfA voting as "trolling." Consider whether others are likely to treat your comment as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with unusual rationales or that feel like "baiting"). Make every effort not to add fuel to the fire. Remember that the bureaucrats who end discussions have a lot of experience and give constructive comments more weight than unproductive ones.


 * Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
 * Most nominations will be active for at least seven days after they are posted on this page, during which time users can express their opinions, ask questions, and leave comments. This discussion is not a vote (it's sometimes called a!vote, after the computer science negation symbol). A bureaucrat will review the discussion at the end of the period to see if there is a consensus for promotion.
 * At RfA, consensus is determined by the strength of the rationales presented, not by crossing a numerical threshold. In practice, most RfAs with more than 75% support pass. Only numbered Support and Oppose comments are taken into account when calculating an RfA's percentage. Neutral comments are ignored when calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (along with other relevant information) are taken into account by the closing bureaucrat when determining consensus. In cases where there is a lack of consensus, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have a greater impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments like "yes" and "no way."
 * A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with SNOW and/or 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 GP:Bureaucrats.
 * Please wait a reasonable amount of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination if your nomination fails. Although some candidates have reapplied and been successful within three months, many editors prefer to wait much longer.