Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions. |
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
| Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | O | N/A | % | ||||
| Dclemens1971 | RfA | Successful | 27 Aug 2026 | 206 | 1 | 2 | >99 |
| MCE89 | RfA | Successful | 20 Jul 2026 | 182 | 6 | 4 | 97 |
| Staraction | RfA | Successful | 20 Jul 2026 | 169 | 9 | 2 | 95 |
| TechnoSquirrel69 | RfA | Successful | 30 Jun 2026 | 201 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
| Chipmunkdavis | RfA | Successful | 30 Jun 2026 | 208 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Bonadea | AE | Elected | 20 May 2026 | 384 | 58 | 104 | 87 |
| Asukite | AE | Elected | 20 May 2026 | 371 | 57 | 118 | 87 |
Proposal: Remove ""Administrators are held to high standards of conduct...."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"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."
I went looking for a way to hold an administrator to a high standard, and was unable to find one. I found a venue to object to misuse of administrator tools, like retaliatory blocking. But no accountability for how they conduct themselves as fellow editors, e.g. role modeling, civility, compliance with behavioral expectations.
If there is no way to hold an someone accountable in these ways, it is misleading to say "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice...."
Please delete. Mevsherd (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- They can be held accountable any of the myriad of ways any editor can be, and they are, or should be, held to higher standards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but this is just trolling. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- No, this is just describing my experience. I read about the recall petition: it mainly applies to how the admin uses admin tools, not general conduct, and is a bit of a nuclear option (like ArbCom). My experience is that editors with a lot of history get a quicker "pass", i.e. are held to lower standards. Mevsherd (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
Um, What? Seriously Inappropriate.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Are the standards for this Talk page different from those of any other Talk page? Why was an active discussion closed? I think it is not true that administrators are held to high standards. So, I want to discuss this Project Page. Where do I do that?
1. To me, the statement is a factual claim about the effect of policies. It is not an aspirational description of policies. I'm not aware of any evidence that it is true. Is there a measure of the standards different groups of editors are actually held to? Is there a community consensus that admins don’t get a quicker “pass” on behavior than other groups? Can you provide any evidence for the claim in question?
2. Shutting down the discussion kinda proves the point. An admin shut down discussion of admin accountability. Is that the community’s vision of having high standards for admins? It’s most grossly hypocritical thing I’ve seen on Wikipedia in at least 48 hours!
If I can’t discussion what this Project Page says here, then where? Mevsherd (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Higher standards for administrators has been repeatedly reaffirmed by ArbCom. DatGuyTalkContribs 20:40, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that expectation is widely stated. How do you know it's being achieved?
- I keep encountering this misconception. Stating expectations, and methods to achieve them, does not tell you what you're doing. How do you know the methods are working? What could test your hypothesis that your methods actually hold admins to a higher standard?
- A similar exchange earlier this week went like so:
- Me: How do you know the methods for creating an NPOV encyclopedia are working? Or how well?
- Editors: We have methods for it (described at length).
- Me, Yeah, but how do you know the methods are working? Or how well?
- Editors: We have methods! (Described in greater length).
- Me: I get it! But, how do you know they're working? Or how well?
- Editors: You might want to leave Wikipedia. This, right after one of them commented in a thread on how to retain editors.
- And now we have:
- Me: How do you know the methods for holding admins to a high standard are working? Or how well?
- Admin#1: We have methods!
- Me: I don't think they're working. How do you know they're working?
- Admin#2: (Shuts down discussion of admin accountability.)
- What do you think of this admin describing my attempt to engage in Talk as "vomit," his refusal to engage in Talk (while reverting my edits), , his threat to "report you to noticeboards for disruptive editing" (I'd twice made an edit that removed 73 chars and been here 4-5 months) , and general sneering? There's no reason to think it's an isolated case.
- As I understand it, he's been an editor and administrator for 20 years and a long-time member of ArbCom. If he's been subjected to your methods for higher standards of conduct, they aren't working. Mevsherd (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)