User:Lantoka/RfA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship is a very interesting place. Here on Wiki-EN, a prospective candidate for administrator either 1) is nominated and accepts or 2) nominates themselves for adminship. Once a nomination is entered, the community has a week to voice their support or opposition for a candidate (with a neutral option also available). At the end of that time period, if there's a consensus (roughly about 80%) to promote the candidate, a bureaucrat makes it happen. If not, then hopefully the candidate has come away with a better understanding of what the community expects from their admins.

[edit] How I Vote on RfA's

Disclaimer: By vote I always mean "express an opinion on an RfA page" (also known as !vote), see WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy.

The way I vote in RfA's is pretty straightforward. I generally wait for a significant number of people to vote first, so that all major issues are thrown out on the table. I then do my own research on the candidate, and using all of this information do my best to come to a conclusion about the candidate's qualifications for adminship. I'm more subjective than most RfA voters, with no firm edit count or activity thresholds. However, I think we all vote with the same core concerns in mind:

1. Is there even a slim chance that the candidate will abuse admin powers? (relevant factors: maturity, dedication to the project)
2. Is the candidate competent enough to use the tools in a manner that will help, not harm, the encyclopedia? (relevant factors: intelligence, experience)
3. Can the candidate be trusted to use good judgment when weilding very powerful tools? (relevant factors: people skills, foresight, knowledge of policy)

In my opinion, pretty much all arbitrary standards are corollaries of these three core concerns. The candidate should shine in all three areas in order to be entrusted with adminship. If the candidate has done so, then they get my support vote. If I have reservations but feel that the candidate could pass RfA in the near future, I go neutral. If I feel that the candidate is grossly underqualified, I vote oppose.

As a rule of thumb, I generally focus in on the most controversial RfA's (i.e. the ones eliciting 50-80% support), where my input will be most valuable. There's hardly any point in chiming in on an RfA that is almost guaranteed to succeed or fail, and my fellow Wikipedians do their homework and are likely to uncover everything there is to a candidate.

[edit] Preparing for RfA

Perhaps one of the best ways to prepare for the RfA process (which can be extremely stressful due to very blatant criticism by one's peers) is to go through a Wikipedia:Editor Review. An editor review is a great way for experienced editors to get feedback about how they're doing as an editor and what kinds of admin-related tasks should be taken up in preparation for adminship. Another program that might be considered is Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin Coaching, although I hear the backlog for this program is quite long.

In general, one should not be too focused on "adminship"; the editor's contributions should speak for themselves. This is why nominations by other people are almost always perferred to the "self-nom". One should already be a well-established member of the Wikipedia community before considering a run for adminship.

[edit] Factors that Affect RfA

The following list is an attempt to highlight some of the things that Wikipedia users might expect from an admin candidate. This list is mostly based on what I've seen in RfA discussions.

[edit] The Essentials

• Edit Count - Your edit count reflects the amount of time and effort you have put into Wikipedia. While this can oftentimes be a misleading metric (for example, a Vandal Fighter will rack up edits must faster than somebody who focuses on article content), many RfA voters place great import on the number of edits a user has managed to accrue. I'd say a minimum of 2000 edits is needed for most RfA's, with 5000 or more being a much safer number. A balance of edits between the mainspace, talk space, and Wikipedia namespace is also perferred. Edit Count Tool
• Activity - Activity is also important because it reflects one's dedication to the project. At least three months of steady activity is generally the bare minimum in RfA's; six months or more is a much safer number. Keep in mind that "steady activity" is important; an admin cannot just be sporadically dedicated to the project, and the candidate's edit history should reflect steady editing for an extended period of time. Long breaks are frowned upon.
• Little Details - The little details are more important than they may seem. Many voters look for an attention to detail in prospective admin candidates. Signatures heavy in code or excessively flashy tend to be perceived as ostentatious and annoying; following conventions laid out at WP:SIG is highly recommended. A utilitarian and well-designed userpage can definitely be a plus. Having Wiki E-mail set up so that you can be contacted anonymously in the event that you become an admin is considered important. Consistent use of edit summaries shows more of that attention to detail. Edit Summary Tool
• Behavior - RfA voters are going to be looking for a candidate that is well-liked by the community, both for their contributions and for their ability to pleasantly interact with other editors. In particular, poor behavior during conflicts, such as personal attacks and other voilations of WP:CIVIL, reflect extremely badly on the candidate. Communication and cooperation with other editors is always important, and is fundamental to working on a volunteer encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
• Motivations - RfA voters are going to take into consideration exactly why a user wants to become an admin, and are only likely to support if the candidate is doing so for the right reasons. Admin powers are often called the "mop and bucket", and for good reason: sysop privileges are simply access to more powerful tools, for the purpose of performing janitorial tasks on Wikipedia that require experienced editors. Candidates that perceive adminship as anything other than "the tools" are likely to get shot down. In particular, "adminship is not a trophy", and the tools should only be awarded to a user if they've demonstrated that they can contirubte significantly to the encyclopedia in this capacity.
• Conduct during the RfA - RfA is a grueling process. The candidate is placed before the community to receive any and all kinds of feedback/criticism, positive or negative. The candidate's contributions to the encyclopedia are evaluated, often in a very blunt manner. Some candidates respond better than others to this process. When all is said and done, it is best to try to take comments made in RfA with a grain of salt, and try to address the concerns raised by RfA voters. Some things to be avoided during the actual RfA include responding to nearly every oppose comment (which indicates an inability to take criticism and a possible arrogance on the part of the candidate), and of course advertising the RfA pretty much anywhere (which can often be construed as meatpuppeting, even something as innocuous as the {{rfa-notice}} template).

[edit] Areas of Focus

• Article Contributions - This one's a biggy. We are first and foremost an encyclopedia, and people reflect this belief in their votes. This issue is so important some voters even demand that a prospective admin candidate be a major contributor in getting an article to featured status in order to earn support (WP:1FA). Contribution to article content is pretty much a must. Demonstrated knowledge of article writing conventions is also a plus, which entails familiarity with things like WP:MOS, WP:FOOT, etc.
• RC Patrol - While not as popular in RfA in recent times, vandal fighting is still a great way to show one's dedication to the project, and also shows a propensity for janitorial tasks on the part of the candidate. Attention to detail is very important while on RC Patrol, however. Vandalism is pretty much the only thing that can be reverted without an edit summary; everything else should contain an explanation. Also, proper use of the {{test}} warning templates is important, so that the vandal is given an opportunity to stop and to expedite blocking after {{test4}}. Frequent posts on WP:AIAV are pretty much a must for a candidate purporting to be a vandal fighter.
• New Page Patrol - Another janitorial task that can nicely round out the admin portfolio, but perhaps one of the most difficult as well. New Page Patrol consists of reviewing new articles, which often require all sorts of maintenance: stubbing, categorization, formatting, wikifying, etc. A task that New Page patrollers often perform is deletion (either WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD) of articles that do not meet various Wikipedia standards. This involvement in the deletion process is also a plus, since participation in AFD discussions is an opportunity to demonstrate a knowledge of policy. However, attention to detail is very important, especially with speedy deletions. Proper notification on talk pages and correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines is essential to deleting articles in good faith, and thoughtlessness in this area has cost candidates in RfA's.
• Project Participation - There are two kinds of WikiProjects: those that focus on article contributions (any of the numerous WikiProjects by subject) and those that focus on some other aspect of Wikipedia (such as Esperanza, AMA, The Wikipedia Signpost, etc.). Participating in a WikiProject is a good way to focus edits on an area of interest, and also provides the opportunity to work with your fellow Wikipedians.
• Admin Pages - Activity on pages like WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:RFA, and pages requiring sysop tools like WP:AFD (closing them), WP:RM, and WP:SSP is also important for prospective candidates. You are applying to be an admin, after all... experience in these areas is important, to demonstrate familiarity with both policy and procedure.
• Images - While this is hardly required, experience with images (and particularly knowledge of WP:FUC and copyright) is definitely a bonus. Fair use images are a hot issue, and a demonstrated understanding of how image tags and copyright work is considered important. Of course, creating your own free images and contributing them to the encyclopedia is even more valuable, since these are often hard to come by online and often have to be created from scratch.
• Policy - A good knowledge of all English Wikipedia policies and a good familiarity with guidelines is very important for a perspective admin. Factors such as Wikipedia Talk edits (which indicate participation in policy discussions) and participation at the Village Pump are a good way to indicate that you've done your homework and know about policy. Participation on meta might also be a good idea.
• Miscellaneous - I certainly haven't exhaustively listed everything an editor can do to contribute to Wikipedia. Some things I didn't mention include productive work with WP:BOTs, small wikignome edits to spruce up the quality of various articles, work at the various help and reference desks, article translation, portal creation, template work, and any other area where your talents might be useful for the encyclopedia.

[edit] A Final Word

With all that said, it's important to know exactly what you're getting into. Admins may just be some of the most underappreciated people on Wikipedia. Their access to the tools makes them the focus of many controversies and disputes, and their work is some of the toughest on Wikipedia. It requires all that I've said here and more, and that is why candidates are screened so heavily in RfA.

So before running for RfA, realize that admins are just editors with "a few more tools". Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", and should be a very natural step up for established editors who have naturally become familiar with admin tasks through their work with the Encyclopedia. And they call it a "mop and bucket" for a reason: janitorial work is not usually the most pleasant work on Wikipedia, nor the most thankful.