Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

rfx starter script

One of the scariest parts of launching an RfA, at least it has been for me, is getting the transclusion stuff right. I have created a script designed to help successfully launch RfAs and RfBs by substituting the timer and transcluding the page. I hope it is of use to people. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think the the RfA process shouldn't be prettified, and it being technically hard to do is the point - if you can't figure that out you aren't qualified to be an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do it, but it's such a visible place that it does make me nervous to make a mistake. Happy this script exists now. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Full disclosure: my nominator transcluded my RfA. I know somewhere between some and many editors think all admins must be technically proficient, but I think it's much more important to simply know what you don't know. Valereee (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

@Pppery, I'm going to follow up. Why do you think all admins must be able to perform this particular edit? I'm not trying to get in your face, here -- I remember reading somewhere years ago that being able to explain subst and transclude was a requirement for admins, so it's definitely not just you -- but I realize I'd never actually heard anyone give this opinion in a recent discussion, so wanted to discuss why for you this is a minimum standard. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I do think that because admin candidates aren't expected to know everything already, their ability to learn new procedures in order to complete administrative tasks is important to consider. I'm not sure if, in my opinion, initiating a request for administrative privileges using the open viewpoint process is a good representative procedure for this purpose, but I can understand if some editors do. isaacl (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "being able to explain subst and transclude" - it's a matter of being able to follow instructions. Wikipedia has numerous procedures admins have to follow that are much more baroque than that. Although admittedly the instructions were more confusing than I remembered, so I made some edits clarifying them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• The RFA template is a fiddly one because you are both transcluding the page and starting the timer. It doesn't require deep knowledge of wiki markup, but it is trickier than the large majority of actions that the large majority of admins will take. Which is why, I presume, even technically skilled editors have asked their nominators to transclude for them. I don't see a purpose in making it difficult as an initiation ritual, so Barkeep49 has my thanks. If an editor lacks even the basic markup skills needed to be an admin, the RFA will make that clear enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  While I agree that starting the timer is fiddly, it's a relatively new addition to the procedure. Candidates have been getting the transclusion step wrong for a while before that was added. I don't agree that it's trickier than the large majority of admin actions: it's purely mechanical, not requiring interpreting guidance and using judgment. I think I lean towards the view, though, that it shouldn't be a litmus test. isaacl (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  These days the large majority of admin tasks have scripts or gadgets that obviate any mucking around with template syntax. Even the ones that don't usually allow you to use preview to check your work. And I can't think of a non-technical task where you don't have the opportunity to fix your syntax in a second edit. None of these is true (until now) for transcluding. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  There's no problem in making a second edit (or even multiple ones) to fix an error in transcluding an RfA. Leaving the error in place does make it look like the candidate didn't check the resulting output, but as far as can tell, it's never had any effect on the RfA result after someone else fixed it. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this, and I think the security-by-obscurity function is a lot less important now that WP:RFA is ECP'd. Candidates shouldn't have to worry about this. As someone who transcluded myself ("how hard can it be!") and then ended up with an RfA that looked like this (not my fault!), I now have a lot more understanding of why many people find it stressful! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• FWIW, transcluding an RfA isn't something that we do every day, so I don't know why we'd expect even an experienced editor to be well versed in it. The last thing an editor about to do RfA needs is stress about getting a process right, especially one that if done wrong might make you look a bit silly. I'd support something making this process easier. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

  And in fact transcluding an RfA is something most admins will never actually do as an admin. Only admins nominating candidates who are nervous about transcluding it themselves will ever need to do this. Having this script available probably makes me -- and possibly others -- more likely to nominate. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• But transcluding and subst and setting a date and time is certainly knowledge that an admin should have. Similarly complex editing is required with closing discussions. Certainly tools can be used to help, but if the underlyung process is not understood, then when things go wrong, that candidate may not be able to assist. So if it is too hard, some more study of the procedure and practice in a sandbox may be appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Extended confirmed requirement

Why could only extended confirmed users vote in RfAs? ~2026-26901-9 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see Proposal 14 of the 2024 RFA Reform. fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Is disclosing prev. accounts to nom a valid disclosure

Per this comment bringing this to a talk page. cc @Theleekycauldron.

Do folks think that disclosing previous accounts to (admin?) nominators is a valid form of disclosure of previous accounts in line with WP:ADMIN? Sohom (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Sohom :) per the comment I made there, I think the answer is no for INVOLVED and privacy reasons, but I'm curious to know what others think. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in to say that whilst I can see why it would be fine in 99% of cases to simply let the nominators know, it wouldn't always be appropriate, so it really should go to arbcom just as a rule. Albeit, I don't believe this is strictly codified anywhere, so I don't think there should be anything at all held against the current RFA candidate for not doing that so far. CoconutOctopus talk 18:32, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I've taken a look at former RfAs. One example is for for DanCherek. He only disclosed his previous account to ARBCOM and his nominators. So it seems the same here. JuniperChill (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I had a prior account (with something like 200 edits) that I disclosed to ArbCom, but not my nominators, if my memory serves me right. Back then, a couple of the ArbCom people went through the entire edit history and it was clear that everything was above board.

In the case of the current candidate, there were a sum-total of six edits on the prior account: two to their user page and four to main space. Pretty simple to check that out. If it had been a significantly higher edit count, I would have suggested the ArbCom route myself to be on the safe side. There was a privacy concern with the prior account, and hence I opted not to suggest ArbCom. Privacy is a touchy thing when you edit in a geographic area where war wasn't that many years ago. Best to keep the editors who know about the account to a minimum in that case, I'd say. Schwede66 23:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not we require disclosure to ARBCOM. I see it as important that we maintain a mechanism for disclosure that preserves a degree of privacy - admins should not be hamstrung in their activity in contentious topics, for instance, because we compelled them to reveal a mistake they made when they were 13. I also want us to approach "other accounts" with some nuance. There's a considerable difference between a clean start to avoid harassment and an abandoned account with a handful of edits, or a privacy alt versus a work-related alt, and most importantly between an active alt account and one that was never contemporaneous. In the case of Vacant0, an abandoned prior account with 6 edits and a clean history that wasn't contemporaneous with a present account does not violate any behavioral expectations whatsoever. I have no problem with Vacant0 disclosing it, but I do not see it as a matter of great import. Were it not for their own honest disclosure there's no reason this would have come up at all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  We also ought to resolve the discrepancy between ADMIN, which requires disclosure, and CLEANSTART, which explicitly says disclosure is recommended but not required. Both are policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  I realize this is really getting into the weeds, and thoroughly off-topic, but: do those policies need to be revised since IP editing has been replaced with temporary accounts? I don't think there was an ever expectation that someone starting account list all their previous IP addresses. I would imagine the attitude is the same for temporary accounts? Regarding "an abandoned prior account with 6 edits and a clean history", who cares, yeah? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• I was quite surprised to see that WP:ADMIN states Candidates are also required to disclose ... any alternate accounts they also edit from, and any past accounts they have previously edited under. That is at best a gross oversimplification of (and at worst a contradiction of) our established practice documented at WP:CLEANSTART#Requests for adminship, which states You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts; however, it is strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee (in strictest confidence if you wish) of the existence of a previous account or accounts prior to seeking adminship or similar functionary positions..
  So I did a bit of sleuthing, and I found that this language was added to the WP:ADMIN policy boldly in April 2025 without discussion by an editor who was blocked indefinitely later in November 2025. Because of this, I have reverted the April 2025 bold edit and reinserted the language that existed prior to it, which only discusses the paid-editing disclosure requirement.
  I consider WP:CLEANSTART#Requests for adminship to be the controlling policy here, and that policy clearly states that RfA candidates are never strictly required to disclose their past accounts, even to the Arbitration Committee, but they are "strongly recommended" to disclose to the Arbitration Committee at minimum. Mz7 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)