This page collects the experiences of various candidates for adminship. It is organized chronologically by the date of the RfA.
July: Ched
May: Ritchie333
Although I discovered Wikipedia around 2003 and started editing with an account in 2005, I didn't discover the "back end" of the site until 2011. I never particularly wanted to be an administrator; indeed in January 2012 I wrote I'd "no desire to be an Administrator and thinks good work here is done for the good of the community, rather than an attempt to brag about barnstars". I think part of that was a reaction to people getting barnstars for reverting vandalism and blocking sockpuppets, rather than doing lots of good writing, and I'd been a moderator on various internet forums since the mid 90s at that point anyway, and had been there, done that, and thought I was too old to go through it again. In the summer of 2012, having had lots of spare time on my hands (maybe I should have watched the Olympics), I got involved in "serious" writing and started working out exactly what was required to get an article to GA status, which led to more and more people noticing what I was doing.
By 2015, established editors were starting to enquire about adminship, and in March, I said, "What's stopping me from being an admin? Well, I have a few skellies (I believe I told an admin to fuck off once), a lot of my experiences aren't logged (it would be interested to capture AFD / CSD "saves" though) and I need extra work and responsibility like a hole in the head." I had a general sense that being an admin was kind of a "consolation prize" for not getting an article through FAC single-handedly (something which I still haven't done). I also had a strong sense of "being right over being popular" which occasionally upsets people, and said things like "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things." which isn't exactly the greatest thing you can say when looking at a potential adminship.
In the event, the RfA was pretty stress-free, I think partly because I wasn't particularly bothered if I got the tools or not, and I expected about 25-30 opposes like "civility is an important pillar and giving Eric Corbett a free pass is not acceptable" and only got a handful. What was far more stressful was the GA review of West Pier which by complete co-incidence ran for pretty much the same duration as the RfA, and featured some disruption from a long-term abuse case (cf. "There appears to be a sockpuppet persistently changing the lede, but that's not a serious issue, since the article can be semi-protected if the socking persists.", also see Talk:West Pier#Lead) which spilled over to the RfA. I wonder if my relatively calm and disinterested handling of that (I didn't answer Q15) is what gave confidence to people who were unsure whether I could do the job or not.
In summary, I wouldn't take anything from my RfA as best practice or advice, it's a bit of a wild card.
— from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
August: Oshwah
My RFA, to put it bluntly, was a nail-biter and it was a nerve-wrecking experience for me (and for reasonable and understandable reasons that I explain in detail below). I just remember feeling completely shocked and in absolute disbelief when I saw that it was closed as 'successful'. To give you some perspective: My RFA closed with 189 total votes, and with a support of 75.0% exactly. Any lower, and a "crat chat" would've been a justified closing action (even though the closing bureaucrat did not believe my RFA to be a borderline case). Shoot, the closing bureaucrat even had to add a statement to the top of my RFA to explain the reason and the rationale as to why they closed it as 'successful'. It certainly was not a fun and easy seven days for me, and I remember checking my RFA every day and constantly while it was open in order to see if I was going to pass or if I was going to fail.
Now, I'll be perfectly honest: Looking back at my RFA today, I can say that I was by no means a perfect candidate, and I probably shouldn't have passed. I was performing tasks that were not designated to be done by non-administrators, which was the main reason as to why my RFA gained so much opposition. I was " NAC'ing" abusive unblock requests made by LTA sock puppet accounts, and I also had been engaging in unofficial "clerking" at AIV - two behaviors that were agreed upon by a significant number of voters that I, as a non-administrator, should not have been doing. My personality and style of contributing to the project also gained some pause by voters who believed that my eagerness to help was "too much", and that I might rush into situations and take action too quickly and before I've given myself a chance to evaluate the entire situation beforehand. Have you ever met someone who was going to be considered for an important position or role in something, and their level of enthusiasm and eagerness to be given that position was so high that it left you thinking, "this person is crazy and is absolutely going to mess things up big time if they were given the role"? Yeah... I was that person.
Back in 2016, did I feel that the edits and behaviors that I engaged in should've drawn so much opposition to my RFA as it did? No. :-) I thought that it was a bit harsh and a bit unfair. My thought in a nutshell was, "as soon as the issues were brought to my attention on the RFA, I apologized to the community for those actions, and I agreed and promised that the NAC-closures of unblock requests would stop and would not continue... so what's the problem?" I of course held (and hold) absolutely no grudges or anything of that sort against anyone who opposed my RFA, and I simply just moved on after it was done. If anything, I was just extremely relieved that it ended and that I managed to pass (albeit barely). It was over, I was granted the admin tools, I was happy, and that was that...
Looking at my RFA now, five years later, I can say with true honesty that I have a much more greater understanding as to why such a large portion of the community was feeling the way that they did, and why my RFA managed to gain so much opposition. A lot happens in five years, and looking back at who I was in 2016, I think that the community was absolutely right with their thoughts and feelings, as well as their hesitation to support my application.
Today, I can say that, while I was definitely not what the community would consider a "perfect candidate" or a "shoo-in" back in 2016 and after these issues were discovered and discussed, I can say that I am very humbled and very pleased to have been able to pass my RFA and be given a chance to show the community that I would handle the tools and the responsibility with good judgment and care. Have I made mistakes since I've been an admin and with my admin tools? Of course... who hasn't? I'm not perfect and I will never be perfect. I'm just happy that, despite the growing opposition, community concerns, and hesitation due to my "eagerness", it was ultimately determined by consensus that I should be given a chance...
July: Valereee
September: Barkeep49
October: Nosebagbear
See User:Nosebagbear/RfA Washup
February: Moneytrees
May: CaptainEek
My RfA passed with a 76%, scraping by the hairs of its chinny-chin-chin. I am glad I did it, but note that it was one of the more stressful weeks of my life. I don't say this to discourage folks, but rather to plainly lay out what is required and what to expect. I probably ran at the earliest possible date I would have passed. Could I have waited 6 months and sailed in (obligatory nautical joke)? Perhaps, but I think we do ourselves a disservice by forcing ready candidates to wait.
The key factor in passing was that I had an FA under my belt in the form of Cactus wren. I think having at least one FA, or two–three GA's is critical. It shows that you are capable of our core mission: building an encyclopedia. Having two well respected nominators (thanks Barkeep49 and Bradv!) also made a big difference. One's nominators can make a big difference, as not only do they provide gravitas to potential voters, good noms provide to you advice. A good nominator ideally has a feel for the RfA process and can give you personalized, in-depth guidance on what to expect. In some ways, your nominators are like campaign managers, and can make or break.
I also had the benefit of knowing various editors in real life, which WikiConNA2019 gave me the privilege of. I had also worked in various content areas of the encyclopedia, as well as ANI, which had led to me being introduced to many editors on good terms. Cooperating, and showing that one can work well in many areas is most helpful. I had prepared ahead of time by ensuring I had no obvious gaps in my Xtools. Do I think its stupid that xTools and its summary is used as a oppose reason? Absolutely! It says almost nothing about an editor. However, some voters don't do that much research, and it is key to provide as few possible points of objection.
So why did my RfA barely survive? A chief problem was my use of automated editing tools, Huggle the main one. After my RfA I have sworn off Huggle, as it leads to very poor editing and decision making. The gamification that such tools allow ensures that you will make embarrassing mistakes. I fear that an upcoming crop of admins will be similarly burned by RedWarn. A particularly poor edit I had made with Huggle required much explaining and soul searching on my part, and could have been an unmitigated disaster if I had not written a sufficient reply. That edit was very much my fault, and I learned much from it.
Another chief danger is the three months of editing leading up to an RfA. I would try to make those months as problem free as possible. Stay out of trouble. Don't do anything contentious. If you usually edit in an area like politics, get out. Edit in your safety backup area. For me, that is birds, which are almost never contentious. I got bit quite bad by this problem, in that I made an uninformed !vote to unblock a particularly nasty character called CaptainOccam. I had not fully investigated the background, and did not realize the extent of his problems, and simply read an unblock message of his at AN and thought that an unblock seemed reasonable. He didn't get unblocked, and that was good. But my !vote in the matter led to my first oppose in my RfA, from Tony, whom I quite respect. This illustrates the unpredictable dangers of RfA: the bellweather voter, and the pile-on. For better or worse, the public nature of votes means that some voters will scan to find the "big names" and read only those votes. One oppose by a noted editor can undo the supports of many less known editors. While that is not a thing we want in RfA, it inherently is. That is how people work. That fueled a number of oppose votes until the issue was mostly resolved. Well timed and well written responses by both nominee and nominator can help to solve these sorts of crisis. If not tackled promptly, pile-on opposes can easily sink your battleship. We are creatures of social momentum after all.
The final main issue that got brought up was my treatment of AfC drafts. This shows where your past numbers game mistakes can hurt you. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. I had been editing en-masse because I believed that without at least 10k edits I wouldn't become an admin. But honestly, if I had just slowed down, I probably could have made admin with 5k edits, if they had simply been higher quality. I declined various drafts I should have accepted, which is attributable to various problems that are a whole discussion in themselves...AfC needs some reform imo. Once one bad recent decline had been drug up, my entire history of drafts was then picked over with a fine toothed comb. So the lesson here: make every edit count, because any edit could be put under the microscope.
In the end, I have found being an admin to be rewarding work. I learned a lot from my RfA, and changed my editing style significantly due to the feedback I received. Furthermore, the concerns of my RfA were not insurmountable, as I now sit on ArbCom, which I also find rewarding. I think we should encourage more folks to RfA, and encourage more folks to be "bare" about their ambitions. So what are my takeaways?
- You can choose when to run. Choose to run in a stress-free week. If it is contentious, you will spend 10–30 hours nursing your RfA during that week. Don't do what I did, which was run during finals week my final semester of Uni :P
- Good nominators are key
- Your responses to questions can make or break, treat them with respect. I spent upwards of 2 hours writing a single paragraph reply to some questions. It certainly changed the outcome of my RfA.
- Automated tools are the plague
- Be on your best behavior in the months leading up to your RfA
- An FA or several GA's is a must
- You will be imperfect. The ability to show reflection and indicate the desire to learn is expected!
- Quality over quantity!!!
And should you ever decide to run, I wish you...Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
May: Less Unless
Thank you to all of those who has devoted their time to participate in recent RfAs. I wanted to say how important this has been for me but also how stressful. The candidate’s position is very vulnerable from a number of perspectives and I wanted to talk about them.
The first and probably the most emotionally draining fact is that you are being scrutinized by such a diverse community and it’s impossible to be perfect. I fully support the idea that the community should pay careful attention to the candidate’s activity because adminship is a huge responsibility, but this doesn’t make it easier. Especially frustrating is the fact that you can’t explain yourself or clarify things in the discussion section or on the talk page (technically you can, but there's a strong feeling it's inappropriate). Meanwhile the majority of the concerns are voiced there. Thoughts and ideas evolving in those discussions are just to observe and this is very nerve wracking as some of them are just misunderstandings or misinterpretations. The only sphere of your influence is the answers to the questions, apart from that you feel quite helpless. It’s also worth mentioning that written communication has a number of draw backs – especially under pressure it’s hard to achieve perfect wording that would definitely be unambiguous. We all have different backgrounds, we come from different communities and countries – these things influence what we say, how we say it and what we mean.
I believe opposition is important – it can show a number of perspectives which could become a departure for improvement. However, knowing that you can potentially be criticized for every mistake you’ve made is another challenge to take.
Is has been very emotional for me and there was a point I was about to withdraw and I know I wasn’t the only one having those thoughts. Luckily, I had people who supported me. Right now, when the RfA is over, everything doesn’t look that bad, but that’s my exact point. I am grateful to be a part of this community. My little wish would be to make RfA process less stressful as many people just might not have the emotional resilience and access to emotional support to deal with it. Kindest regards, Less Unless (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
— from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
June: Trialpears
See User:Trialpears/RfA debriefing
June: Vami_IV [Unsuccessful; Withdrawn]
May: Tamzin
See User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief (see also Inside Wikipedia’s Historic, Fiercely Contested “Election”)
August: Shushugah
Paraphrasing my earlier coments, I am deeply grateful for the civility and consideration by all participants thus far, especially those with oppose rationals. This potentially reflects a positive change in RfA culture. The civility/cordiality afforded to me means I would be very open to re-nominating/being nominated again in the future, and I hope the many other more qualified candidates (many who have given reflective feedback here) also consider running after seeing a civil, albeit unsucessful RfA. I have a lot of reflections/improvements to make and will continue to be a net-positive with the current tooling I have in content creation, Teahouse amongst other places.
— from
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
August: Femke
September: ScottishFinnishRadish
See ScottishFinnishRadish's Signpost interview
October: Isabelle Belato
See Isabelle Belato's Signpost interview
December: ComplexRational
See ComplexRational's Signpost interview
March: Aoidh
This page collects the experiences of various candidates for adminship. It is organized chronologically by the date of the RfA.
July: Ched
May: Ritchie333
Although I discovered Wikipedia around 2003 and started editing with an account in 2005, I didn't discover the "back end" of the site until 2011. I never particularly wanted to be an administrator; indeed in January 2012 I wrote I'd "no desire to be an Administrator and thinks good work here is done for the good of the community, rather than an attempt to brag about barnstars". I think part of that was a reaction to people getting barnstars for reverting vandalism and blocking sockpuppets, rather than doing lots of good writing, and I'd been a moderator on various internet forums since the mid 90s at that point anyway, and had been there, done that, and thought I was too old to go through it again. In the summer of 2012, having had lots of spare time on my hands (maybe I should have watched the Olympics), I got involved in "serious" writing and started working out exactly what was required to get an article to GA status, which led to more and more people noticing what I was doing.
By 2015, established editors were starting to enquire about adminship, and in March, I said, "What's stopping me from being an admin? Well, I have a few skellies (I believe I told an admin to fuck off once), a lot of my experiences aren't logged (it would be interested to capture AFD / CSD "saves" though) and I need extra work and responsibility like a hole in the head." I had a general sense that being an admin was kind of a "consolation prize" for not getting an article through FAC single-handedly (something which I still haven't done). I also had a strong sense of "being right over being popular" which occasionally upsets people, and said things like "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things." which isn't exactly the greatest thing you can say when looking at a potential adminship.
In the event, the RfA was pretty stress-free, I think partly because I wasn't particularly bothered if I got the tools or not, and I expected about 25-30 opposes like "civility is an important pillar and giving Eric Corbett a free pass is not acceptable" and only got a handful. What was far more stressful was the GA review of West Pier which by complete co-incidence ran for pretty much the same duration as the RfA, and featured some disruption from a long-term abuse case (cf. "There appears to be a sockpuppet persistently changing the lede, but that's not a serious issue, since the article can be semi-protected if the socking persists.", also see Talk:West Pier#Lead) which spilled over to the RfA. I wonder if my relatively calm and disinterested handling of that (I didn't answer Q15) is what gave confidence to people who were unsure whether I could do the job or not.
In summary, I wouldn't take anything from my RfA as best practice or advice, it's a bit of a wild card.
— from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
August: Oshwah
My RFA, to put it bluntly, was a nail-biter and it was a nerve-wrecking experience for me (and for reasonable and understandable reasons that I explain in detail below). I just remember feeling completely shocked and in absolute disbelief when I saw that it was closed as 'successful'. To give you some perspective: My RFA closed with 189 total votes, and with a support of 75.0% exactly. Any lower, and a "crat chat" would've been a justified closing action (even though the closing bureaucrat did not believe my RFA to be a borderline case). Shoot, the closing bureaucrat even had to add a statement to the top of my RFA to explain the reason and the rationale as to why they closed it as 'successful'. It certainly was not a fun and easy seven days for me, and I remember checking my RFA every day and constantly while it was open in order to see if I was going to pass or if I was going to fail.
Now, I'll be perfectly honest: Looking back at my RFA today, I can say that I was by no means a perfect candidate, and I probably shouldn't have passed. I was performing tasks that were not designated to be done by non-administrators, which was the main reason as to why my RFA gained so much opposition. I was " NAC'ing" abusive unblock requests made by LTA sock puppet accounts, and I also had been engaging in unofficial "clerking" at AIV - two behaviors that were agreed upon by a significant number of voters that I, as a non-administrator, should not have been doing. My personality and style of contributing to the project also gained some pause by voters who believed that my eagerness to help was "too much", and that I might rush into situations and take action too quickly and before I've given myself a chance to evaluate the entire situation beforehand. Have you ever met someone who was going to be considered for an important position or role in something, and their level of enthusiasm and eagerness to be given that position was so high that it left you thinking, "this person is crazy and is absolutely going to mess things up big time if they were given the role"? Yeah... I was that person.
Back in 2016, did I feel that the edits and behaviors that I engaged in should've drawn so much opposition to my RFA as it did? No. :-) I thought that it was a bit harsh and a bit unfair. My thought in a nutshell was, "as soon as the issues were brought to my attention on the RFA, I apologized to the community for those actions, and I agreed and promised that the NAC-closures of unblock requests would stop and would not continue... so what's the problem?" I of course held (and hold) absolutely no grudges or anything of that sort against anyone who opposed my RFA, and I simply just moved on after it was done. If anything, I was just extremely relieved that it ended and that I managed to pass (albeit barely). It was over, I was granted the admin tools, I was happy, and that was that...
Looking at my RFA now, five years later, I can say with true honesty that I have a much more greater understanding as to why such a large portion of the community was feeling the way that they did, and why my RFA managed to gain so much opposition. A lot happens in five years, and looking back at who I was in 2016, I think that the community was absolutely right with their thoughts and feelings, as well as their hesitation to support my application.
Today, I can say that, while I was definitely not what the community would consider a "perfect candidate" or a "shoo-in" back in 2016 and after these issues were discovered and discussed, I can say that I am very humbled and very pleased to have been able to pass my RFA and be given a chance to show the community that I would handle the tools and the responsibility with good judgment and care. Have I made mistakes since I've been an admin and with my admin tools? Of course... who hasn't? I'm not perfect and I will never be perfect. I'm just happy that, despite the growing opposition, community concerns, and hesitation due to my "eagerness", it was ultimately determined by consensus that I should be given a chance...
July: Valereee
September: Barkeep49
October: Nosebagbear
See User:Nosebagbear/RfA Washup
February: Moneytrees
May: CaptainEek
My RfA passed with a 76%, scraping by the hairs of its chinny-chin-chin. I am glad I did it, but note that it was one of the more stressful weeks of my life. I don't say this to discourage folks, but rather to plainly lay out what is required and what to expect. I probably ran at the earliest possible date I would have passed. Could I have waited 6 months and sailed in (obligatory nautical joke)? Perhaps, but I think we do ourselves a disservice by forcing ready candidates to wait.
The key factor in passing was that I had an FA under my belt in the form of Cactus wren. I think having at least one FA, or two–three GA's is critical. It shows that you are capable of our core mission: building an encyclopedia. Having two well respected nominators (thanks Barkeep49 and Bradv!) also made a big difference. One's nominators can make a big difference, as not only do they provide gravitas to potential voters, good noms provide to you advice. A good nominator ideally has a feel for the RfA process and can give you personalized, in-depth guidance on what to expect. In some ways, your nominators are like campaign managers, and can make or break.
I also had the benefit of knowing various editors in real life, which WikiConNA2019 gave me the privilege of. I had also worked in various content areas of the encyclopedia, as well as ANI, which had led to me being introduced to many editors on good terms. Cooperating, and showing that one can work well in many areas is most helpful. I had prepared ahead of time by ensuring I had no obvious gaps in my Xtools. Do I think its stupid that xTools and its summary is used as a oppose reason? Absolutely! It says almost nothing about an editor. However, some voters don't do that much research, and it is key to provide as few possible points of objection.
So why did my RfA barely survive? A chief problem was my use of automated editing tools, Huggle the main one. After my RfA I have sworn off Huggle, as it leads to very poor editing and decision making. The gamification that such tools allow ensures that you will make embarrassing mistakes. I fear that an upcoming crop of admins will be similarly burned by RedWarn. A particularly poor edit I had made with Huggle required much explaining and soul searching on my part, and could have been an unmitigated disaster if I had not written a sufficient reply. That edit was very much my fault, and I learned much from it.
Another chief danger is the three months of editing leading up to an RfA. I would try to make those months as problem free as possible. Stay out of trouble. Don't do anything contentious. If you usually edit in an area like politics, get out. Edit in your safety backup area. For me, that is birds, which are almost never contentious. I got bit quite bad by this problem, in that I made an uninformed !vote to unblock a particularly nasty character called CaptainOccam. I had not fully investigated the background, and did not realize the extent of his problems, and simply read an unblock message of his at AN and thought that an unblock seemed reasonable. He didn't get unblocked, and that was good. But my !vote in the matter led to my first oppose in my RfA, from Tony, whom I quite respect. This illustrates the unpredictable dangers of RfA: the bellweather voter, and the pile-on. For better or worse, the public nature of votes means that some voters will scan to find the "big names" and read only those votes. One oppose by a noted editor can undo the supports of many less known editors. While that is not a thing we want in RfA, it inherently is. That is how people work. That fueled a number of oppose votes until the issue was mostly resolved. Well timed and well written responses by both nominee and nominator can help to solve these sorts of crisis. If not tackled promptly, pile-on opposes can easily sink your battleship. We are creatures of social momentum after all.
The final main issue that got brought up was my treatment of AfC drafts. This shows where your past numbers game mistakes can hurt you. Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. I had been editing en-masse because I believed that without at least 10k edits I wouldn't become an admin. But honestly, if I had just slowed down, I probably could have made admin with 5k edits, if they had simply been higher quality. I declined various drafts I should have accepted, which is attributable to various problems that are a whole discussion in themselves...AfC needs some reform imo. Once one bad recent decline had been drug up, my entire history of drafts was then picked over with a fine toothed comb. So the lesson here: make every edit count, because any edit could be put under the microscope.
In the end, I have found being an admin to be rewarding work. I learned a lot from my RfA, and changed my editing style significantly due to the feedback I received. Furthermore, the concerns of my RfA were not insurmountable, as I now sit on ArbCom, which I also find rewarding. I think we should encourage more folks to RfA, and encourage more folks to be "bare" about their ambitions. So what are my takeaways?
- You can choose when to run. Choose to run in a stress-free week. If it is contentious, you will spend 10–30 hours nursing your RfA during that week. Don't do what I did, which was run during finals week my final semester of Uni :P
- Good nominators are key
- Your responses to questions can make or break, treat them with respect. I spent upwards of 2 hours writing a single paragraph reply to some questions. It certainly changed the outcome of my RfA.
- Automated tools are the plague
- Be on your best behavior in the months leading up to your RfA
- An FA or several GA's is a must
- You will be imperfect. The ability to show reflection and indicate the desire to learn is expected!
- Quality over quantity!!!
And should you ever decide to run, I wish you...Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 20:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
May: Less Unless
Thank you to all of those who has devoted their time to participate in recent RfAs. I wanted to say how important this has been for me but also how stressful. The candidate’s position is very vulnerable from a number of perspectives and I wanted to talk about them.
The first and probably the most emotionally draining fact is that you are being scrutinized by such a diverse community and it’s impossible to be perfect. I fully support the idea that the community should pay careful attention to the candidate’s activity because adminship is a huge responsibility, but this doesn’t make it easier. Especially frustrating is the fact that you can’t explain yourself or clarify things in the discussion section or on the talk page (technically you can, but there's a strong feeling it's inappropriate). Meanwhile the majority of the concerns are voiced there. Thoughts and ideas evolving in those discussions are just to observe and this is very nerve wracking as some of them are just misunderstandings or misinterpretations. The only sphere of your influence is the answers to the questions, apart from that you feel quite helpless. It’s also worth mentioning that written communication has a number of draw backs – especially under pressure it’s hard to achieve perfect wording that would definitely be unambiguous. We all have different backgrounds, we come from different communities and countries – these things influence what we say, how we say it and what we mean.
I believe opposition is important – it can show a number of perspectives which could become a departure for improvement. However, knowing that you can potentially be criticized for every mistake you’ve made is another challenge to take.
Is has been very emotional for me and there was a point I was about to withdraw and I know I wasn’t the only one having those thoughts. Luckily, I had people who supported me. Right now, when the RfA is over, everything doesn’t look that bad, but that’s my exact point. I am grateful to be a part of this community. My little wish would be to make RfA process less stressful as many people just might not have the emotional resilience and access to emotional support to deal with it. Kindest regards, Less Unless (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
— from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
June: Trialpears
See User:Trialpears/RfA debriefing
June: Vami_IV [Unsuccessful; Withdrawn]
May: Tamzin
See User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief (see also Inside Wikipedia’s Historic, Fiercely Contested “Election”)
August: Shushugah
Paraphrasing my earlier coments, I am deeply grateful for the civility and consideration by all participants thus far, especially those with oppose rationals. This potentially reflects a positive change in RfA culture. The civility/cordiality afforded to me means I would be very open to re-nominating/being nominated again in the future, and I hope the many other more qualified candidates (many who have given reflective feedback here) also consider running after seeing a civil, albeit unsucessful RfA. I have a lot of reflections/improvements to make and will continue to be a net-positive with the current tooling I have in content creation, Teahouse amongst other places.
— from
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
August: Femke
September: ScottishFinnishRadish
See ScottishFinnishRadish's Signpost interview
October: Isabelle Belato
See Isabelle Belato's Signpost interview
December: ComplexRational
See ComplexRational's Signpost interview