Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

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

"WP:RFA" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, or requests for assistance at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Note: Although this page is under extended confirmed protection, non-extended confirmed editors may still comment on individual requests, which are located on subpages of this page.
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated.
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
LaundryPizza03 44 41 18 52 Open 00:19, 17 April 2025 5 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 11:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
LaundryPizza03 44 41 18 52 Open 00:19, 17 April 2025 5 days, 13 hours no report
Current time is 11:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC). — Purge this page
Shortcuts

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

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

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

One trial run of an experimental process of administrator elections took place in October 2024. Administrator elections were authorized permanently on a 5-month schedule in an RfC held in early 2025. The next administrator election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for further information.

About administrators

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

About RfA

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Goldsztajn RfA Successful 23 Mar 2025 136 1 4 99
Barkeep49 RfB Successful 7 Mar 2025 219 5 8 98
Giraffer RfA Successful 1 Mar 2025 221 0 1 100
Sennecaster RfA Successful 25 Dec 2024 230 0 0 100

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion, decision, and closing procedures

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

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

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

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

Monitors

Shortcut

In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. 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 11:11:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Purge page cache if nominations have not updated.

LaundryPizza03

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (44/41/18); Scheduled to end 00:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Monitors: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination

LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs) – This field is empty now. A previous draft of this RfA listed all three answers to the questions listed below, and I'm not sure what goes here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

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

0. Have you ever edited for pay?
Note for clarification: this question was added by Cryptic (talk · contribs) at 13:48, 10 April 2025 UTC and is not typically a part of the required questions in this section. Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A:
1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: I was encouraged to do so after and receiving User_talk:LaundryPizza03#There_is_a_mop_reserved_in_your_name for my contributions to closing old CfD nominations, which are rarely monitored by existing admins; I have also noticed a chronic backlog at RfD, that is not helped by direct transclusion of log subpages making the page hard to load or use the reply function. Additionally, I was encouraged to do so after reporting various adminsitrative backlogs at AN, most recently for an F5-related blacklog and a CfD backlog.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: For the best contribution to Wikipedia, I can't answer that question. I think the biggest recent project was to update the lists of isotopes, which I have done up to at least NUBASE2020/AME2020, a major comprehensive review of known nuclei and isomers, for all but five of the first 101 elements at time of writing.
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: For conflicts over editing, I have received a few notices about improper CfD closures; I have tended to reopen them or defer to WP:DRV, although I'm not quick to respond due to various factors outside the wiki. I anticipate that with an admin tool, I can diversify to other XfD venues and reduce overspecialization, one of several articles I created in the past — CfD is one of the few venues with non-admin-actionable delete closures. (Either depopulate the category, or list at WT:CFDW or WP:CFDWM. That said, I ran into a problem once with renaming a category populated by a protected template.)
Also, I received a talk page notice about misuse of WP:DRV, to which I reacted by using it less often. Further inspection of my talk page archives also found further short-lived conflicts at Magical alphabet, Fiveling, a mass PROD issue, a declines earlier draft of Racially motivated emergency call, and some others I didn't bother listing.

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 Mz7

4. Looking through your talk page archives, I stumbled across this thread from a few months ago about this DRV that you started: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 7#Guite people. Do you still believe that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guite people was incorrectly closed? If so, how would you have closed the discussion?
A:

Optional questions from 68.2.138.130

5. What would you say is the most difficult or bold closure you have ever performed, at any XfD?
A:
6. Have you ever created a significant article, or contributed greatly to one?
A:

Optional questions from CaptainEek

7. An RfA has only three mandatory questions, but your answer to mandatory question #2 is "I can't answer that question." You have also failed to provide any sort of self nomination statement, or the customary disclosure of alternative accounts and paid editor status. How would you respond to an oppose vote that used those concerns to note that you seem rather unprepared for this process?
A:
8. This year you've made some 16,000 edits to categories, which is out of proportion to your usual edits. One of the reasons appears to be your mass CfD activity, such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_5#Category:Eponymous_categories, in which you nominated 2,389 categories, but which was closed as keep. Could you share any reflections you have on this mass CfD activity?
A:

Optional questons from User:TarnishedPath

9. LaundryPizza03 have you gotten any articles to WP:GA status? I can't see any listed on your user page. TarnishedPathtalk 07:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A:

Optional question from RoySmith

10. I'm not as worried about content creation as some people are, but I do give it some weight. To save me a lot of slogging through your edit history, could you highlight a few articles where you made significant original contributions to content. By "original contributions" I mean not stuff like page moves, redirects, category maintenance, or other maintenance type edits, but rather reading some source material and composing a substantial amount of prose which summarizes what those sources say. RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A:


Discussion

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

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

Support
  1. YES!!! charlotte 👸♥ 00:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My feelings on this RfA are still "YES!!!", even if I regret that it was underbaked.
    I continue to think that content is not as relevant as it is made out to be – it can be a good quality, but it should be far from a requirement and there are other ways to demonstrate the relevant knowledge. And even then, LP does have some content – none of it spectacular, but they all look serviceable to me; short, but all well-cited (Overspecialization has one better source needed tag, but that's far from deal-breaking) and overall devoid of issues (Racially motivated emergency call has a globalize tag, but that's also far from deal-breaking for me).
    There is no doubt that LP is a competent closer at CfD (an often neglected venue, as HouseBlaster noted below); I'll quote some stats from my EOTW nom in August 2024 since they're still relevant:

    he has closed some 2,100 [now 2,200] XfDs and has the fifth most edits to Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working [still true]

    I think he would do just fine with the mop, and if he doesn't, then well, we have a solution for that (although I hope it doesn't get to that point).
    While I dislike that LP did not read previous self-noms and write one of his own (it doesn't have to be much – mine was just a simple paragraph about who I am, what I do, previous achievements, and disclosures), I do not think this should be disqualifing of a good candidate. I also don't like the answer to Q2, but I agree with Sdkb's analysis below, and again do not think this is disqualifing.
    Regarding the lack of responses to questions, it hasn't been that long, and I assume LP has a real life and more important things to do than respond to some questions for a volunteer position. Or maybe he's just stressed out – can't blame him for that – and taking time to collect himself before answering the questions (or withdrawing, but I hope it doesn't get to that point), which sounds like a pretty good quality for an admin to me, not making rash decisions.
    So overall I'm still a support, although I could swing either way based on the responses to the questions and opposes. charlotte 👸♥ 20:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting how a large fraction of the oppose votes are factual statements that are true of me as well. I think that shows that they aren't as disqualifying for an admin candidate as the opposers think. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERADMINSEXIST? :) Owen× ☎ 15:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The hypothesis being asserted is is that because of these concerns LP03 would make a bad admin. I present myself as a counterexample - If User_talk:Pppery/Archive_25#Desysop is anything to go by then I'm clearly recognized as a good admin, despite my lack of content creation, despite many of the same criticisms made of LP03 also holding, and hence the hypothesis is false. I do agree this RfA could have been prepared better, and that it was poor form of LP03 to file a RfA and then make no edits for this many hours after, but none of that is disqualifying. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and agree. Like you, Pppery, I believe there is plenty of room for WP:GNOME-type admins who specialize in specific, technical areas, without necessarily being well-rounded content creators. I was merely jestfully equating "other admins are like that" at RfA with "other articles are like that" at AfD. Owen× ☎ 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tbh, with how stressful RfA is reputed for being, I can see disengaging with Wikipedia for a bit while the process carries itself out. Why would it be poor form? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the community expects you to answer questions, among other things. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. CfD and RfD certainly need more admin assistance, so I'm very glad to see this. -- Tavix (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support It is without question that the fields that LaundryPizza03 describes need more admins. As for content work, I've crossed paths with them in a few discussions: At WikiProject Chemistry; in astronomy-related discussions; in an RfC -- and I usually find their input reasonable. :) Renerpho (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think this RfA could have been prepared better. I'll keep watching to see if that turns out to be relevant for my vote. Renerpho (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Invaluable to the XfD processes and a well-rounded editor. it's lio! | talk | work 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Looks like a trustworthy editor, admin is no big deal. Has my Support. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still support even in light of numerous "oppose" votes. Administrator should be no big deal and should not require similar amount of work to running a political campaign. While the content produced is light (no GA or FA quality), what exists looks well written, well sourced, and within policy. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 21:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support – why not? Graham87 (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I don't usually vote in these but very very very useful at CfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Ktkvtsh (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)Changed vote Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ternera (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support- Unlikely to break the project IMO.   Aloha27  talk  03:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - I actually remember the Guite people, which is one of the AfDs that most confused me. No concerns about giving them the mop. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, they say they "can't answer" what their best contribution is, so I looked through some of their content work. !Voters sometimes look for peer-reviewed articles, but most content isn't reviewed. It's more like sandbags stacked by hordes of arguing strangers, against a rising tide of ignorance and online misinformation. Many of the candidate's article edits move loads of sand to the right places. For example, these edits to dark energy, hypernucleus, and space colonization improve the quality of information, writing, and sourcing. Nobody needs an FA to close at CfD. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. 'port Conyo14 (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Seems fine. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. CfD will definitely benefit from this. Nobody (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Seems good to me. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. CFD admin here. I would crawl over broken glass to support this RFA. (I am even typing this support from mobile!)
    The backlog at CFD is immense. Last Friday, the backlog was about 200 discussions, stretching back to the middle of March. I spent my weekend getting that backlog down to less than 10. Now, don't get me wrong, I love CFD. But that is not healthy: Not for me, to be the single bus factor admin, and certainly not for Wikipedia. If someone else wants to step up and help us out at CFD, please do so! But if you are not stepping up to fill that void, my personal plea to you, dear reader is to support those who are doing so. LaundryPizza03 is a diligent closer, a kind helper, and a thoughtful editor, and will make Wikipedia better with the mop. My strongest possible support. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any idea why the categories for deletion backlog is so high? Are there a lot of categories that need to be deleted, or does CfD just not get that much attention (compared to AfD, I mean)? Mrfoogles (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the above. CFD covers renaming, merging, splitting, listifying, and purging (not WP:PURGEing—removing pages from the category). It is like if AfD covered RM, merge requests, and most talk page discussions about what belongs in an article.
    While I am here: I do wish that LP03 would answer some of the questions, and I agree that there is room for improvement in their AFD work, if they plan to branch out there.
    But: many people, myself included, really hate writing good things about themselves. That LP03 is humble enough that he can't really write a good Q2 answer is not really a strike against him, in my opinion (see also my general opinion on superlative questions). How does ability to write a good resume correlated with being a good Wikipedia admin? It definitely doesn't help with writing NPOV articles.
    I also don't see how spending time on polishing an RfA statement makes Wikipedia better, so I disagree with editors opposing on that basis. LaundryPizza is a massive boon to Wikipedia, and I continue to urge editors to support this RfA. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support like I did on their talk. For all people who decide to oppose due to lack of much content creation, LP wants to work in CfD does not need to be good in content creation. They are willing&able to help Wikipedia, and that's all that matters. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Looks good enough to me. Good luck! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. No problems here! Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per HouseBlaster. I'll also add that I don't think adminship should be a big deal, and I'm not seeing any reason why handing them the bit poses a net harm to the project. Also happy that this is a self-nom btw! 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. If LaundryPizza wishes to work in content creation and proves superbly inept, WP:RECALL is available. Otherwise, no issues with a CfD-focused admin. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CfD is one thing, but the candidate expresses an interest in diversify[ing] to other XfD venues, and I think @Toadspike raises some legitimate questions below about XfD/DRV participation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support to offset oppose #1, amongst other things. It's amazing that there are very capable editors who can handle the mop that don't run for RfA since they get this spiral effect of pile-on opposes due to some archaic, antiquated requirement to have content experience to have the mop. I'm familiar with this editor, they have a level head, and I'm confident they will not dive into trying to administrate areas in which they are not familiar ... which really should be enough, given that Wikipedia at present has aspects of it that can be fixed / protected / resolved that are not exclusive to content management or creation, such as tasks that really do not get enough credit like managing redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't sound like you've read my essay, and the rationales behind it. For example, consider Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2 which I gladly supported. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support editor who is a consistent contributor to CFD and has a clear use for the tools. I have found their work in "isotopes of..." articles helpful and they are willing to accept criticism when it's warranted. Reconrabbit 13:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support They seem fine. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support No issues that I see, and to me that has always been and will remain enough. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Seems competent. It's not content-creators that we're short of. Maproom (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support - And in response to the opposes: editcountitis is for the birds. - jc37 18:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -- has written multiple articles which look pretty good, and another editor encouraged them to do admin work, in the view of the fact that they have been doing similar work already. If someone wants to volunteer and others see them as trustworthy they sound like a fine admin. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support per Pppery. The opposer's rationales are quite uncompelling. The lack of content creation is just untrue, there is more than sufficient content creation experience here for an admin. I have interacted with the candidate on WP:CHEM and WP:CHEMICALS related issues and have only seen positive things. Clearly qualifed and would be net positive. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Moral support for now. Something like ten people told them to run, so they threw their hat in the ring, and then got jumped on for lack of preparation. I haven't gotten the chance to actually check whether I am swayed by the potential issues with their CfDs and other conduct in deletion discussions, so this is a neutral and not a support, but I believe that the questions are a start for editors to evaluate them: the real question is how they have, empirically, conducted themselves, not how they write a couple paragraphs in an RfA. Rusalkii (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notable to me that I can't find a single oppose (except one that mentions a mass category nom which failed) that mentions their CfD work (as opposed to AfD issues). As far as I can tell, everyone familiar with the candidate's significant work "would crawl over broken glass to support" (one of the strongest supports I've seen in a while!). Rusalkii (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed some of the potentially problematic AfDs. They strike me as somewhat hasty in a few cases but not egregious, and there are plenty of perfectly reasonable ones as well. I'd recommend LaundryPizza03 take a long careful look at the deletion criteria and gain more experience at AfD (or RfD, the venue I'm more familiar with) before branching out to admin work there, but there's nothing in any of the opposes that makes me doubt their fundamental suitability to adminship. I've seen some evidence that they seem to take feedback reasonably well, which is (if there are issues) usually the tiebreaker for me. Moving to support. Rusalkii (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Nothing in this editor's edit history (including past mistakes, which are remediable) leads me to be concerned that they would handle the mop intemperately. BD2412 T 20:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Oppose #6 reveals that the candidate's deletion philosophy differs from mine, but what else is new? Nothing else here worries me. Vadder (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support to help with the CfD backlog as detailed in HouseBlaster's support and Jc37's comment. Absent a better solution, I will not decline a willing pair of helping hands. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Are we really enforcing the idea that RfA has to be pageantry? That people have to know the arbitrary norms of a space they'll only ever have to interact with once in their admin career in order to do the extra work for the project they want to get back to? It's like we don't even want new admins.
    As for the actual qualifications of the candidate: I'm kind of worried by the lack of content creation, but then again, I nominated a fantastic category admin who had a only bit more in the way of notches on the wall. Being a category admin is just a less content-dependent field than, say, AfD or user-conduct adminning. And in terms of LP's category bona fides, if they're good enough for HouseBlaster, they're good enough for me. Count this as a slightly weak, but very indignant support. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Tentative support. I've also been of the view that LaundryPizza03 should seek adminship based on their prolific contribution to CfD as one of the top closers. (Of course, I would have liked to see a nomination statement.) However, I would want to spend more time checking this if it seemed like the request had a good chance of passing at the moment. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 01:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I don't know if the candidate would make a very good administrator, mostly because I have not personally seen them dealing with difficult situations, and they do not seem to have very extensive experience. Also, due to their bizarre refusal to answer fairly basic questions in the nomination statements; I surmise this is because everyone told them to nominate themselves, and then they just did it, without neurotically reading every word of every RfA in the last decade, which we have apparently made a requirement, even though it is stupid and insane to do this (for the record, I did it). But, for Christ's sake, we made it twenty-four years with people whose RfA statement consisted of "lol y not?" and nearly every time I've seen an admin action and thought it sucked, it has been through too much obsequious rule-following, rather than not enough. So to hell with the rationales of my distinguished colleagues irn the oppose column. Support: I thought they were already an admin. jp×g🗯️ 07:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per Leeky. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. I, too, thought LaundryPizza03 was already an admin. He certainly carries himself like an admin. He'll be very good with the tools, a trusted editor. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 08:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose No significant content creation of any kind, the most prominent being Timeline of the far future where the edits are simply reverting others. (eg: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) I require evidence of you being able to produce pages before you can police them. See my essay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming the oppose in the light of recent edits. LaundryPizza03 has ignored this RfA and carried on editing elsewhere as if it didn't exist. Normally, staying away from drama and focusing on improving the encyclopedia elsewhere is the right thing to do and sound advice, but in this case it shows the candidate did not read (or, at best, read but did not understand the implications of) Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_candidates#Timing. Sorry, my number one requirement isn't actually content creation, it's communication, and the radio silence here is not acceptable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per @Ritchie333. No evidence of significant content creation. TarnishedPathtalk 07:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Question 2 is a softball question, one that should be easy to answer. Think about it yourself - what's your best contribution to Wikipedia? I can certainly think of one for myself, and I hope you can too. To answer Q2 with "I can't answer that question" is bad judgement and poor self reflection at best, and flippancy at worst. Also concerning is following it with "the biggest recent project was" - that's not what the question asked! Turini2 (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the answer could be read a little differently, as in something along the lines of "it's impossible to say objectively which of my contributions was the most well-done or most impactful, and even if it were it wouldn't be my place to judge it. But here's one big thing I've done which might be considered my best work." Of course, one of the top things we look for in admins is an ability to communicate clearly, so it's not optimal that the candidate's short response leaves open your interpretation. But in an AGF spirit it could be read as being humble rather than not bothering to reflect on one's work. Sdkb talk 17:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. I maintain the point it shows a lack of preparation - a helpful friend/mentor/nominator could have read a draft Q2 answer in the way that I did and suggest that they have another stab at actually answering the softball question! Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Ritchie333 and Benison. I don't think you give someone power over editors who are in the trenches unless that person's been there. Ultimately, we're here to build an encyclopedia. I don't ask a FA or GA, just some bit of the encyclopedia that the candidate can point at and say "I did that" and that they would care about.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Mostly per Ritchie. The lack of preparation is also concerning. Intothatdarkness 12:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Going over the candidate's AfD history, I see some red flags. Of the 162 last AfDs where he was either the nominator or !voted Delete, a full 38% ended up being either kept (16%), redirected (12%), merged (2.5%) or otherwise not deleted. In quite a few cases, his nomination or !vote to Delete was the only one, with other participants having no trouble finding sources and establishing notability. Attempts on his part to find an ATD are rare and declining in frequency: 3.5% over the past 200 AfDs, and 7.5% of the previous 200. Of the 9 most recent AfDs where he !voted "Speedy delete", only one was actually deleted under CSD. I didn't check his history of speedy tagging.
    I don't see any of these nominations or !votes as having been done in bad faith, but many of them strike me as lazy, with zero effort made to run a WP:BEFORE. In at least one case he even admits this: "I have not attempted to assess notability on my own". That AfD was among his many nominations that were correctly closed as Keep. The general attitude I see from him is an adversarial, "This should be deleted; prove me wrong!", rather than any attempt to collaborate with those trying to find sources or a suitable ATD. This is an unproductive attitude for anyone on a crowdsourced project, but a dangerous one for someone with access to the Delete button. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The articles that this editor added in the Chemistry area are inferior. Poor sources and poor content.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Per Ritchie, i don't see it yet. Kante4 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Concur with Ritchie, Wehwalt and others. Tim riley talk 14:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose I just cannot reconcile the offer of I can diversify to other XfD venues with the issues brought up by OwenX. Schwede66 15:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, per several people above. Q2 is a sitter of a question, so not answering that is problematic. Very low content work - and no creation of any standard. The poor AfD stats and approach are the final nail in the coffin for me. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Based on the editor's history of contributions, AfD history, etc., I do not believe that they have sufficient experience yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose in my opinion, a lack of content creation is not automatically a disqualifier, but it becomes one when paired with what appear to be deletionist tendencies. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose The self-nomination statement is of concern to me. Their have been enough people that have self nominated to draw inspiration from. It strikes me as being unprepared. -- Dolotta (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose for now. I had hoped to support, because my general impression of LaundryPizza has been that they are competent and collaborative, but this request seems rushed, or poorly planned. If they weren't sure what to put in the 'Nomination' field, there are a hundreds of previous RfAs they could have looked at to find out, and perhaps draw inspiration. And a bit of thinking ought to have been able to produce a more definitive statement to answer Q2. So yeah - I don't think I can support this request, but I hope to be able to support a better thought-through request in the near future. Girth Summit (blether) 16:19, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. The user should create some pages before becoming an admin. Sahaib (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LaundryPizza03 has a list of created pages on his user page, including Lutetium phthalocyanine, M22 graph, 8 Ursae Minoris, and Thulium-170. Reconrabbit 16:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the pages created are quite small and about similar topics. Sahaib (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. I've seen LaundryPizza around and gained a good personal impression; also, I always like to see a self-nomination, as such. (Adminship is not a snobby club — no need for upper-class sponsors. Hello there, CaptainEek, how you doing?) But I do agree with Ritchie333's arguments for why admins need some content creation experience. Compare User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content. Point 4 of the essay really says it all: Administrators are frequently called in to settle content disputes. Bishonen | tålk 17:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    *adjusts snobby spectacles, picks up delicate teacup* My point of course is that a nominator is about more than just the connection, it's about the guidance they offer. I was just disappointed that ten people urged LP to run but nobody took the time to counsel them on how to do so. A good nominator could have helped craft a sensible defense against their lack of obvious content creation, or perhaps suggested delaying their nom a bit until such content could be created. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the initial AWOT poster, I saw what looked to me like substantial content creation on their user page. I wasn't expecting so much opposes over that issue. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose - Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see. Mailing in Q2 causes me to mail in an Oppose. I don't care much for the heavy work on categories and very light work in mainspace either. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose -- I agree with Girth Summit's viewpoint. I think LP appears to have a clue in their own niche and has the respect of some strong editors with whom I am familiar. However, an RFA introduces the candidate to a large group of us who will not be familiar with them. That initial impression is monumentally important in this difficult exam. This self-nom appears too hasty, is sparse on details and lacks clear communication -- these are all problematic for an admin. I am unable to support at this time. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - "I'm not sure what goes here" in the self-nomination section above is a HUGE red flag. As Girth Summit suggests - it shows this nomination is rushed/poorly planned. Have a proper think and come back in 6 months. GiantSnowman 17:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  21. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 17:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose — I take a middle ground on content creation as a prerequisite for adminship. While certainly experience "in the trenches" helps when having to wade into the middle of a mudwallow between editors who should have called in help long before, at least terms of having a practical understanding of policies that may be involved, we should not be demanding recognized content as proof. Some very talented editors, and content-creating admins, have no desire to develop content to that level. And, conversely, our past ArbCom cases have more than a few examples of editors universally acknowledged as skilled content contributors whom nevertheless we would have to be deranged to trust with the mop.

    That was originally going to be my support !vote. But, since then ... people have looked into the candidate's content contributions, and the AfD nom that OwenX found is very concerning for someone asking for the power to make those deletions themselves.

    More problematic for me is that, in the wake of all the concern over their answer to Q2, CaptainEek posed Q7 over 12 hours ago as a followup. While it does seem as though they might not have gotten around to seeing it, their recent history shows some activity during the equivalent periods of time (i.e., mornings North American EDT), so they could have. And this non-answer as the opposes based on Q2 keep piling up tips the balance for me. Either they don't know what to say, or they don't have the time. Both can be problematic for an admin involved in a tense situation.

    I know at this point it's likely the nom will be withdrawn anyway, but I felt this !vote was necessary to hasten that decision as my reason is more complex than merely "answer to Q2". Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  23. Oppose – I do not have confidence in this candidate based on the lack of a self–nomination statement, or actually, the disastrous one that is currently in place. This is your opening monologue to the masses, to explain who you are and what you have to offer. Unfortunately, it fails and does not make me feel like you will know what to do when met with the unknown.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose – Not answering whether they have ever been paid to edit when it is a simple "Yes/No" question (Q0) is a giant red flag, as is not really answering Q2. Mass nomination of nearly 2,400 categories, closing a CfD without having the permissions to do everything needed to effect the close, and opening a DRV when there was no way the closure was functionally incorrect all lead me to believe that LP03 does not have the competence to be an admin. I also believe that admitting I have not attempted to assess notability on my own when opening an AfD for a de-prodded article shows a clear knee-jerk reaction to a prod being removed and either ignorance (best case) or willful disregard (worst case) of WP:BEFORE. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    closing a CfD without having the permissions to do everything needed to effect the close is normal at CfD, and not an indication of any misuse. In my opinion (as an admin and sporadic closer of CfDs), LP03 did nothing wrong there, and the fault for that misstep instead lied with Ymblanter who told the bot to process the instructions. But I can't really blame him either - content categories being populated by templates is super unusual and I'm not sure if I would have caught it myself, as either closer, bot feeder, or both. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stricken that part from my response, but I have to agree with Liz when she said that it was his responsibility to follow-up and make sure it was completed. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness on Q0, the candidate didn't ignore it, he just failed to address it in his acceptance statement, where it usually is addressed. Q0 was added by Cryptic later, and the candidate has not returned to answer it (or any other questions; I've checked back a couple times today and am frankly mystified by the candidate's absence). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And here I thought Q0 was actually part of the basic questions. Maybe it should be, but that's a topic for a different discussion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically, the nomination statement includes a sentence from the nominee basically saying, "I accept this nomination. I have never edited for pay, and I have (never) used another account: NameOfAccount." So, it's not part of the 3 questions, but it's part of the nomination. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's basically no reasonable way to know you're required to do that. See my edit summary, if you didn't click on the diff Dclemens1971 linked above. —Cryptic 22:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised I can't find anything specifically providing this information on the preparation pages (there's actually shockingly little information about actually writing the RFA). However, I wouldn't say it's unreasonable to look at recent RFAs, most of which include this declaration. In fact, the Advice for RFA Candidates includes Please ensure you are prepared by reading up on old RfAs in the nutshell summary. All in all, I don't think this particular detail is the biggest deal, but it shows a lack of effort to understand the process, which I discussed in my neutral comment. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose An empty nomination statement and a !answer to Q2 really isn't a good look for a fledgling candidate. Mox Eden (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I don't care for the lack of content creation, but a bland initial statement and the answer to Q2 does not impress me as someone who has never met this person before. Tarlby (t) (c) 20:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose This brings me no joy to write, but the answer to question 2 is quite frankly the worst I've ever seen in a serious RfA. I'm not going to give some speech about "content creation", I think that's overhyped as someone who's written a lot of stuff. I don't think a self-nomination is some sort of black mark as others do. But seeing the bungled nomination and highly disappointing Q2 answer leaves me with no choice but to oppose this RfA at this time. I don't expect candidates to have fifty shiny badges on their userpage. I do expect them to take RfA seriously by taking the time to give a nomination statement, or seeking assistance if they are not sure how to. Please come back in a few months with a properly done nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose I agree with the above discussion that the nomination and answer to Q2 are both disappointing. Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose I'd also like to see a bit more content creation, and I'm concerned by the lack of a solid response to Q2. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose per User:Ritchie333. Candidate appears to show a flippant approach to editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Oppose If you are going to self-nominate, it's extra important to get the basic stuff right. Not even writing a nomination statement (it's still not there after nearly 24 hours) or answering Q2 properly makes me question their competence, I'm sorry to say. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Didn't complete the required prerequisites for the nomination. Noah, BSBATalk 23:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Not seeing any answers to the questions, a basic nomination statement nor is there any convincing or compelling argument made as to why the project would be better with LaundryPizza03 being an admin. Viatori (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose A lack of carefulness, thoroughness and responsiveness in answering the questions is a red flag for me. Per my comments below, in modern Wikipedia times, I don't consider a lack of new article creation to a valid indication of anything, but that is just a sidebar comment. North8000 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose No real answers to any of the nomination questions, also, not finding a solid response to Q2 is a dealbreaker and a red flag for me. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 01:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Per WP:NOTYET and WP:WRITE, it's a bit odd to say that you have zero boast-worthy content creation under your belt, especially after 70k edits. I would say come back after there is more experience in that area. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm WP:NOTNOTYET. 68.2.138.130 (talk) 07:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An essay is not a guideline, so it should not be cited as though one is breaking the rules by not adhering to it... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Many editors have already given detailed reasons related to minimal content creation and attitudes about deletion. Their deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CESRA where they wrote I have not attempted to assess notability on my own is a bridge too far for me. Do not nominate an article for deletion unless you have come to the reasonable conclusion that the topic is not notable. I consider that to be Wikipedia 101. Cullen328 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The CESRA incident was 18 months ago and more recent data seems to show they have learned from it. If they ran for RfA after making the comment, I may tell them to come back in 6 months or a year to demonstrate they had changed their attitude. What kind of timeline would you like to see from this editor to reassure you? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollinginhisgrave, for me, it is not a matter of X number of months, but instead a demonstrable commitment to serious content creation, efforts to save and improve content, and responsiveness to the widely accepted behavioral norms for candidates for administrator. For example, answer the good faith questions. This is my personal opinion, but I am not impressed by a major focus on discussing categories. I have no objections to self-nominations as long as the candidate is fully prepared. Cullen328 (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose for lack of much in the way of meaningful contributions to the project (aside from CfD closures), and evasive approach to basic questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose for lack of communication here and answering questions clearly. Also worried about the lack of major content creation. Ultraodan (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I feel compelled to land here. The wafer-thin answers to the question show a lack of preparation and forethought or unseemly haste, not qualities we want in our administrators. While I'm sure you didn't mean it to be so, the perfunctory answers could be read as a sign of contempt for the community. Your userpage says you have ADHD and I suspect that has more to do with it than your feelings about the community. If you learn to curb some of the impulses of ADHD, it could actually make you a great admin. Places like XfD in particular need workhorse admins, but those admins need to be able to give thoughtful explanations for potentially controversial actions, and explain themselves clearly when their actions are challenged. This brings us to why content is important (besides being the reason the website exists, cf. the very first of my musings)—admins don't need to have a cabinet of trophies they polish compulsively but they absolutely need some experience of what verifiability, neutrality, and no original research mean, and not just being able to recite the policies but understanding how these are applied in the wild. Writing is not necessarily the only way to do that; offering some insightful third opinions or RfC comments or even AfD votes can demonstrate that. Writing is better, because you can't truly empathise with someone trying to defend their writing against a POV pusher or someone who insists the article include a "fact" they half-remembered from something they read on the Internet until you've been there (and admins who apply our behavioural policies in a vacuum cause more problems than they solve), but I would consider a candidate who showed that kind of insight by other means. I'm just not seeing that here, either. For what it's worth, I have a generally good impression of you from whenever you've crossed my watchlist so please don't take this to mean that you can never be an administrator, just that this is a big website and you need broader and deeper exposure if adminship is the road you want to take. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose with regret. LP has been active in the 36 hours since launching this RFA but has not returned to answer any of the questions. It gives me concern for WP:ADMINACCT issues down the line. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral I can't see any major content creation/improvement anywhere. Reverts and closes are essentials, but I agree with Ritchie333's take (and their essay). IMO, we are here to edit articles primarily and policing comes later. Maybe they can gain more experience in content creation in the coming months and then I'll gladly fully support. They have a pretty good understanding of our P&Gs as evident from their closes. Nothing else stands out for me otherwise that would stop them from getting the mop except the lack of content creation. — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I took a look at the candidate's AfD history [1] and was not impressed. Several of the !votes and nominations I checked were very low-effort, often not containing any rationale whatsoever. This RfA reinforces that impression: there is no nomination statement, the required paid editing and alt account disclosures are missing, and no optional questions have been answered (yet). Many editors I trust a lot have expressed support for their category work, but frankly the rest of this is not reassuring. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some examples: [2][3][4]. Some further digging revealed that not all of the candidate's !votes are like this, but it is alarming that any are. Toadspike [Talk] 09:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see good/featured content or an RfA nominator as prerequisites to adminship. After reading HouseBlaster's comment, I thought I'd eventually move to the support section. However, seeing OwenX coming to the same conclusion as me with a deeper analysis and noticing (thanks to Dclemens) that the candidate has expressed an interest in "other XfD venues", my concerns have been reinforced. To add to their !voting history, their 15 AfD closes [5] have mostly been procedural (after a speedy deletion), the remaining two withdrawing their own AfD nominations. The candidate has not shown themselves fit to be closing AfDs; if they would like to branch out from CfD, I strongly encourage them to re-read our notability guidelines and practice searching for sources (let me know if you'd like some tips). Toadspike [Talk] 13:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral I believe that adminship should be no big deal, and I don't think that content creation is necessary to be a good admin - we are editors, not just writers. On those grounds, and given the nominee's clear interest in performing useful administrative tasks, I am inclined to support. However, the lack of preparation gives me pause, as do the examples raised by Toadspike above and by others via questions. I'd like to see good answers to the questions before deciding whether to support. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral I disagree with Ritchie333's (and other's) criteria and have made the same point in the past, so the candidate's content creation is not a problem for me; where i do feel there is an issue, though, is in the apparent lack of preparation for this Request. This isn't the late 2000s any more, when an RfA could pass with little more than a "seems to be a good person" or "I'd like to be an admin" as an introduction and nomination; in 2025 i cannot help but feel that taking the process a bit more seriously is a necessary prerequisite for coming here. I am truly open to persuasion if the answers to optional questions are excellent, and/or if the candidate offers a bit more of a self-nomination statement ~ LindsayHello 11:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    in 2025 i cannot help but feel that taking the process a bit more seriously is a necessary prerequisite for coming here
    I'd disagree with that, not for this specific RfA, but on a general level. I agree that there are norms that have formed around the RfA culture. I disagree that these norms are necessarily good. Especially when it comes to the nomination. I have feelings around that because I ran for a self-nom without asking for much guidance and preparation, and mostly answered the questions based on the pattern of how others answered. That resulted in me citing CSD and AIV in Q1, two areas in which I have made relatively less contributions, and garnered oppose for that.
    If everyone thinks that having a nominator to help a candidate with a nomination statement while also providing some guidance on answering questions is a much better way for RfAs to be presented, and would reduce candidate stress (probably, I wouldn't know I guess), let's ban self-noms. But that might not happen, because I know there are people who would agree with the principle of making RfAs accessible and easy (which they are not), and would apply that principle to suggest that banning self-noms creates yet another requirement for RfAs, creates more bureaucracy, discourages candidates and so on. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do feel like there is a minimum required level of seriousness that should be expected. Not sure what that minimum level is. Its just politness really: put an equivalent level of effort into your application that you're expecting from your fellow editors who will be looking in to you. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello 0xDeadbeef; i may have been unclear in my comment and, if so, i apologise and did not intend to mislead. I have nothing against self-noms ~ i'm sure i've supported some on the basis that that is what they were, and i would be happy to see more. My concern here is what appears to be a very casual approach to the Request. I note that below someone points out that the candidate doesn't appear to have !voted in an RfA previously; maybe that's why there appears to be an unusual attitude. And, since you brought it up, your RfA, however much guidance and preparation you sought and gave it, has the appearance of belonging to someone who had thought through what they were doing; furthermore, for the record, i opposed then and i was wrong and happy to say so ~ LindsayHello 22:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I have more thoughts on this but I'll put them in the general comments section. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, for now. I have no experience with CfD but I think it's admirable if someone can find a niche in an area with backlog problems, and I admire the self-nomination and do not believe that's ground for opposition in any way However, the interest in other XfDs suggests that more experience would be helpful. Toadspike's concerns about AfD participation are valid (an 80% match rate seems low, although the match rate in recent months is better even if n is small). I am interested in seeing the candidate's answers before deciding either way, particularly to Q4 about the Guite people DRV, which raises a serious question about the candidate's ability to assess consensus at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when is an 80% match rate low? That looks like a good match rate to me. Anyone with a 100% match rate is clearly only doing extremely obvious nominations and/or adding pile-on votes when the consensus is already clear. And this is coming from someone who's in opposition to this RfA for other reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that an 80% match rate is solid and should not cause concern. The quality of the !votes is much more important. Someone can have a 98% match rate and still show they don't understand notability (example) or have a 60% match rate but clearly have a clue. Toadspike [Talk] 06:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral - Great editor with adequate experience and time here, although the content creation is the make-or-break for me. I'd suggest maybe getting a GA and coming back. EF5 13:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I'm very lenient when it comes to RfA compared to some other editors, but the lack of preparation for this process gives me doubt. The answer to Q2 and the current lack of answers to optional questions are not a good look in my eyes. However, because of what I'm seeing from supporters, I'd be willing to support if the editor properly answers Q2 and answers some of the optional questions. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 15:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Neutral: I want to be convinced a bit more that this editor is going to be a net positive as an admin. While I doubt that they'll break the project, I think their comparatively low content experience might reduce their proficiency in crucial areas of their intended admin work. Looking forward to making a proper !vote later on. Best of luck! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Neutral: the lack of engagement is puzzling, but there may be a good reason, so I will wait until tomorrow. Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral: Personally, I have no concerns about the self-nomination or content creation. However, it is concerning to me that LaundryPizza03 didn't seem to take time to understand what is expected from them in the process (e.g., by not providing a nomination statement). It also appears they haven't !voted in an RFA before ([6]). This isn't a prerequisite, but I would expect that if someone is unfamiliar with a process, that they would seek out information about that process. That can include talking it through with people with more experience and/or reading up on how to do it. Given the current evidence, it doesn't seem like LP03 necessarily did either, which gives me pause. If they don't take the time to understand the RFA process, how can we assume they'll take the time and energy to understand administrative processes? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I'm fairly surprised by the "has no content creation" opposes when a quick look at the candidate's userpage shows that very much not to be the case with over a dozen articles created. Those may be mostly short but in the versions submitted for AFC they're suitably sourced start class articles, so I fail to see the problem. If creation of a dozen plus articles equals "no content creation" then it's easy to see why many feel our RFA standards are becoming impossibly high. However, what does concern me with the candidate is questionable communication (they could easily have dispelled the content concerns in their opening questions) and deletionist tendencies, including a worrying failure to do WP:BEFORE (not strictly required at WP:AFD but I always feel it's good practice to at least have some look for sources before nominating the hard work of others to be nuked) so I'm parking in neutral. Valenciano (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral - content creation is a very weak concern of mine when it comes to RfA candidates, and I strongly disagree with the characterization from the opposers that the candidate has not created any "significant" content when several articles they started or contributed to are prominently listed on their userpage. That being said, the lack of a nomination statement or a statement about paid editing from the candidate suggests a concerning lack of preparation for this process. I doubt this RfA is going to pass, but I think LaundryPizza03 has everything they need to pass a future RfA. I encourage them to look at previous RfAs for inspiration and beef up their nomination statement, or consider finding a nominator (or nominators) to help coach them through the process. MaterialsPsych (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Neutral Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This is a rare RfA where I actually do want to see the answers to later questions. I mean, CfD definitely needs admins and this should have been an easy support for me especially since I don't care about admin content creation numbers or self-noms, but the statement and answers given so far, which are the easy parts of an RfA, are just rough. Wizardman 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Neutral I'm concerned that we are dealing with some complex issues here. I'm assuming good faith and considering that the mistakes around the self-nomination are not the result of lack of understanding, but possibly an atypical response to the urging from numerous editors and admins to become an admin via a talk message. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral For the few interactions I've had, I personally would not have been against LP03 becoming an admin, but I do agree with many of the points brought up by those in the oppose section. These less so revolve around their RfA responses, and more so regard their general lack article creation, which is something I value heavily. I'd love to see you get renominated in the future however, especially for your contributions to the niche areas of the encyclopedia. Johnson524 06:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral No nomination statement, a horrendous question 2 (which is typically the one that is supposed to make you look the best), and no response to any questions for well over a day. Communication is one of the primary keys to adminship, and the candidate has so far displayed poor communication. I am not in the oppose column because I have seen this candidate's good work throughout the years, but I cannot support this RFA at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Neutral. Contra Ritchie et al., I don't think their content work (or lack thereof) is disqualifying: while they're certainly not a Content EditorTM, they have created articles and they are the primary editor of at least hypernucleus. For someone who presumably wants the mop to work at CfD, that's sufficient content experience for me – I'd much rather an editor like this spent their time at CfD than someone who would otherwise be writing FAs! I don't immediately see (and I can't see that anyone else has found) any major content issues, which I would consider a serious problem. I also don't think being self-nominated, or an underwhelming nomination statement, are inherently problematic, and the support particularly by HouseBlaster does hold weight for me if LP does want to be a CfD admin.
    That said, I cannot support because this RfA gives so little to go on. They don't need to have a nominator, or even write a good self-nomination statement – but I'd need to see something. Even the idea that they want to be a CfD admin is conjecture – neither the nomination statement nor the answers to the mandatory questions explicitly say that! Some of the AfD issues pointed to by e.g. ToadSpike and OwenX give me pause, especially for someone who apparently is interested in deletion. And their not having even acknowledged any of the questions since the RfA opened, despite having been active in that time, is also not encouraging. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
General comments

Who nominated you, LaundryPizza03? Renerpho (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renerpho, no one did. Nominators aren't required. This is a self-nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks! No objections. I was confused by what's in the nomination section. Renerpho (talk) 08:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That stupid fucking "there's a mop reserved in your name" template. There are other problems here, including what certainly looks like naïveté, lots of people who did no more than "+1!!" the template, pile-on opposes, our pretty random requirement (or not, depending on the day of the week) for significant content work, but if I have to pick one overarching culprit, it's that stupid template. Nice idea, poor execution: The mop is "reserved"! Go for it! We all love you! (Psych). I complained about it years ago, but lazily didn't follow up. Shame on me too for that. User:Kudpung had a good idea at the same time I was complaining - link to WP:RFAADVICE in the template, at least - but no one actually did that. Sorry, LP3; I don't actually know if I would support or not, but nobody deserves getting their chain yanked like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have similar concerns. LP3 seems like a good candidate who went into an RfA too quickly off the back of an AWOT notification. I don't blame them -- I can easily see how someone less familiar with the RfA process might perceive AWOT as something indicating that they are likely to pass, when in reality it's just a fancier way of the sender saying that they think the recipient would be a good admin. I think if LP3 waited a month and got a nom or two to address the weak points and help them through the RFA process, this would pass pretty painlessly. Part of me wonders if we should have some sort of disclaimer on the AWOT template to explain that there is no guarantee that the opinion of the sender reflects the community's view. Giraffer (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The horse is out of the barn on this one, but for the next one, I’ve taken a stab at such a disclaimer (and CaptainEek has improved the wording). See the current {{Administrator without tools}}. Next on the agenda is cleaning up the wording of WP:AWOT (i.e. not just the template, but the linked page in the template). That page is kind of a mess, 1/3 message for reciever, 1/3 message for nominator, 1/3 semi-documentation for the template. Also, we should nuke WP:ASAP, but I don't have the energy to figure out RFD right now. Floquenbeam (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bless you and @CaptainEek both. This situation is reminiscent of schoolyard bullies' "hey LaundryPizza03, you're pretty! ...pretty ugly!" I'm sure no one here intended the bait-and-switch. But ouch. -- asilvering (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I like the disclaimer and I think it really strikes the right tone. Kudos to you and Eek :) Giraffer (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Forsooth. jp×g🗯️ 07:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for all those asking about whether the candidate has experience looking at content and at sources. Anyone who is a regular at discussing at WP:CfD has to learn a lot about pretty much any topic on Wikipedia. Unlike those who only edit in whatever niche they prefer, category discussions can span the gamut of everything on Wikipedia. So to be able to thoughtfully engage there means often learning things outside one's comfort zone. (It's one of the reasons I enjoy CfD, so many opportunities for learning things you might never have thought to go investigate and research.)

This is something that I presume we look for in admins as well, as an admin, when looking at any given situation, may need to close a discussion or protect a page, without initially knowing anything about a topic.

So I would encourage anyone wondering about the candidate to go look at their CfD contributions and whether they have been positive, thoughtful, collaborative, and often, engaged with outside the box thinking. - jc37 23:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo theleekycauldron's point above that there appears to be a requirement that people learn and put effort into presenting themselves based on the standard expectations of RfA regulars. Even though I ultimately decided to self-nom, I still studied many previous RfAs and the ways in which candidates were presented. Would I find learning about the process interesting? Probably not, I only dove slightly deeper than I otherwise would have been because I felt it was necessary. Should we force admin candidates to present themselves in the way RfA regulars want them to? I'd prefer not, but if otherwise, we should ban self-noms as a start. I want us to stop caring as much about presentation as this page apparently suggests. But RfA is of course where all the RfA regulars show up, and there's almost a bias in the ways people feel about RfAs when you only look at people who regularly !vote/comment on RfAs.

For this specific case, people probably would have !voted very differently if some coaching/advice was given to them before they went live with their RfA. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people have stated that they would've voted differently on a more prepared RfA from the same candidate. Several (e.g. Significa liberdade, Lollipoplollipoplollipop, Trainsandotherthings) have made the reasonable argument that if a candidate is gonna ask hundreds of people to carefully analyze their suitability for adminship, they ought to put a similar effort into their candidacy. Principles of reciprocity aside, it is not unreasonable to take this as a piece of evidence in voters' broader evaluation in a candidate. Toadspike [Talk] 10:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


About RfB

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

Shortcut

Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They can also grant or remove bot status on an account.

The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.

Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert 

{{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}

into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.

At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.

While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}} on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing. Like requests for adminship, requests for bureaucratship are advertised on the watchlist and on Template:Centralized discussion.

Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.

Current nominations for bureaucratship

There are no current nominations.

For RfX participants

History and statistics

Removal of adminship

Noticeboards

Permissions

Footnotes

  1. ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
  2. ^ Voting was restricted to editors with the extended confirmed right following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
  3. ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
  4. ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
  5. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1284949161"