This is a list of RfAs where the candidate was already an administrator at the time of the RfA. There is no Wikipedia policy either permitting or prohibiting such RfAs, leaving their validity and consequences uncertain.
For RfAs where the candidate had previously been an administrator, but no longer was one at the time of the RfA, see User:NoSeptember/Desysop.
2003
edit- Started: 27 November 2003 (involuntary)
- Summary: A user requested that The Cunctator be desysopped. The discussion was eventually archived with no action taken.
2004
edit- Started: 12 Jan 2004
- Summary: A user nominated silsor for adminship, only to find that a developer had already promoted him without an RfA. Discussion continued amid criticism of the developer's action.
2005
edit- Started: 24 June 2005 (voluntary)
- Summary: Seth Ilys nominated himself to see "what it would be like if we re-voted on standing users who already hold admin powers".
- Result: (31/0/3) 100%
- Started: 24 October 2005 (involuntary)
- Summary: ArbCom ruled in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo that Stevertigo was to undergo a reconfirmation RfA. The RfA was initially judged to have failed and Stevertigo was desysopped. Subsequently the RfA was relisted, but then closed again and the decision remitted to ArbCom, which ruled to formalize the desysopping.
- Result: (17/29/7/49) [support, oppose, neutral, remit] - closed by admin and arbitrator Theresa knott (talk · contribs)
- Started: 1 November 2005
- Summary: silsor filed an RfA to request that he become a regular user, explaining: "This request will help me gauge the effect of becoming a user, show me how people view the two different 'statuses' (which they aren't, really), and help me find out where RFA and en-wiki-adminship have gone so badly wrong."
- Result: (13/8/5/12) [support, oppose, neutral, no vote] - closed by bureaucrat UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs)
2006
edit- Started: 11 June 2006 (voluntary)
- Summary: moink had voluntarily given up use of admin tools due to concern about her behavior, but had not resigned the bit. She filed an RfA to determine whether she should resume using the tools, or resign.
- Result: successful, (86/0/0) 100% - closed by bureaucrat Essjay (talk · contribs)
2008
edit2009
edit- Started: 7 March 2009 (involuntary)
- Summary: Jasonr had originally been sysopped by Jimbo Wales for technical reasons, but had not undergone an RfA or used the tools since his promotion. A user nominated him for desysopping.
- Result: Jimbo removed Jasonr's admin permissions and closed the RfA early.
- Started: 16 May 2009 (voluntary)
- Summary: After two years as an administrator, LessHeard vanU filed a new RfA "to give the community the opportunity to weigh [his] contributions as a sysop and to conclude whether [he] should continue."
- Result: successful, (154/39/22) 80% - closed by bureaucrat Deskana (talk · contribs)
2010
edit- Started: 23 June 2010 (voluntary)
- Summary: In response to a recall petition, Herostratus filed a new RfA, promising that if it was unsuccessful, he would step down. Following uncertainty about whether a bureaucrat would close it, Herostratus and two other editors voted on its outcome. Two of the three concluded that the RfA was unsuccessful, so Herostratus resigned his bit.
- Result: unsuccessful, (78/48/21) 62% - closed by Tommy2010 (talk · contribs), admin Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) and Herostratus (talk · contribs)
2017
edit- Started: 24 December 2017 (voluntary)
- Summary: Harrias stood for reconfirmation believing that accountability is important. He intended to do so at the five year point of their original RfA but missed it by a few days. Harrias was also concerned about his credentials for being an administrator as their original nominator was subsequently indefinitely banned from the project.
- Result: successful (110/9/40) 92% - closed by admin Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)