User:RyanCross/RfA criteria
- This is RyanCross' requests for adminship criteria.
The requests for adminship (RfA) process is when the community decides if an non-admin candidate of an RfA should become a Wikipedia administrator or not. The process is generally discussion and !voting on an RfA of a candidate, trying to find consensus if the candidate should become an administrator. After the RfA discussion has been ongoing for a week, a bureaucrats will find the consensus of the RfA. If the closing bureaucrat thinks the consensus of the RfA was to make the candidate an administrator, they will do so and will close the RfA as successful. If not, the bureaucrat will close the RfA as unsuccessful.
I have been generally active in this are for a while and have decided to create my criteria for adminship. This page expresses my ideas about why and when I would !vote support or oppose in an RfA, along with my nomination criteria.
Criteria change
Specifics change
These are a few specific criteria that I expect in potential admin candidates. The criteria is the following:
- I believe experience is an important quality. I prefer admin candidates to have been actively editing for a minimum of three months. (I consider someone active with about (at the least) 150-200 edits a month) Anything lower than three months, I will most than likely oppose the candidate due to prematurity in Wikipedia. Unless there's proof that the candidate will do good as an administrator while being active on Wikipedia for less than three months, I will oppose. If an editor was active and then became inactive (I consider someone inactive when someone has edited very rarely or none at all in a time span of 1–3 months), and then became active again, then goes for an RfA, I will most likely oppose. When coming out of inactivity, I expect the candidate to prove that they will not become inactive anytime soon without warning.
- I want to see that the candidate has made constructive and meaningful edits that have been well distributed across the namespaces (mainspace, projectspace, etc). (20,000 edits in three months does not impress me, and I may just oppose because of it. I also discourage very few edits.) Generally, I would like to see 1000–3000 MANUAL edits that have helped Wikipedia in many ways.
- Policy knowledge is what I expect in all admin candidates. I can tell if someone knows Simple English Wikipedia rules mostly through reviewing general editing of the candidate, depending on the areas the candidate participates in and how, but there are other ways to tell whether a candidate knows our rules or not. Candidates who do not show knowledge of our rules will most likely abuse the tools in some way, thus, leading me to oppose the candidate in an RfA.
- I would like to see candidates who have done a lot to help the encyclopedia. The most common way to do this is through article creation, improvement, and content writing. Again, that is not the only way. Candidates who have significantly contributed to an article that has been promoted to WP:GA or WP:VGA (VGA is preferred), may help push me to support. You do not need to have contributed to a GA/VGA, but it does help.
- I would like to see civil candidates. Incivility is the quickest way to garner an oppose from me. If the candidate has shown incivility before, I expect to have seen the candidate have been in a civil behaviour from there on out. If I think the candidate has proven they will no longer be uncivil (this can be done in many ways), I will more than likely support.
- I would like to see consensus-building in some form. Communication between the editor, others, and the community in general is perhaps the most important thing I want to see! Communication is the key to making improvements. Use the key to do something good for the community, and unlock new ideas. Talk about your ideas you have. This can be done in various ways.
Other change
- Has the candidate been blocked in the past 12 months? If so, I will see why. Was the block justified? How has the candidate changed since then (if at all)? How did the candidate respond to the block? etc. Any block issued over a year ago, I will ignore, even blocks issued because of vandalism! Whether I will support, oppose, or go neutral depends on when the block was issued and why the block was issued in the first place.
- Has the candidate participated in adminly areas? I love candidates who do admin-related work and could do further with the tools. Examples of adminly areas include: WP:VIP reporting (can do further with the block tool), WP:QD tagging (could do further with the deletion tool), WP:AN participation (can fulfill admin-needed requests), and WP:RFD participation (can close debates as "delete" and can actually delete the article).
- Does the candidate participate in areas of Wikipedia not normally done by other editors? I love supporting editors who help out in areas nobody else cares about!
- Has the candidate undergone (a) previous RfA(s)? If so, did they address the concerns of the last RfA? (I am willing to overlook some flaws in a candidate if they can show me that they listened to and learned from their previous RfA.) Also, did the user wait three months before running again? Preferably, I expect at the least, three months between RfAs. Anything less than three months might make me think that the candidate is desperate for adminship, which I do not like.
- Who nominated you? A good nomination does matter! People do care if the nomination was a self-nom, and if not a self-nom, who nominated you and what did they do for Wikipedia and the community. If an administrator nominates you with a strong nomination, that admin's reputation and the belief that the admin properly vetted you will be in mind when the community !votes. This can actually benefit in an RfA. An unknown nominator raises questions, and maybe even some concerns depending on their editing history. Likewise, while the RfA is supposed to be about the candidate, a nom by somebody disruptive (even an administrator) might count against you... at bare minimum, it will make greater scrutiny. The nominator(s) and the nomination statement(s) might affect how I !vote.
- Did the candidate answer the questions well (if any)? Strong answers will help candidates decide how to !vote. Remember we are looking for a reason to accept or reject you as an administrator. Simple English Wikipedia don't have default questions in RfAs. Though, if you receive questions from an editor, how you answer those questions is what I will be watching.
- Does the candidate act like an administrator? The tools are nice, but they aren't what being an admin is all about. People who 'act like an admin' are most likely to get my support.
Review change
Before I !vote, I do a review on the candidate. The following is the order I review in: (I will only move on to the next step if I see no serious issues during the step I was previously doing):
- I generally start with looking at a few tools, just to get a feel of your edits. Some tools I use include: [1] [2] I usually look for what your edit count is, how many deleted edits you have (and what type of deleted edits you have, preferably QD tagging), and the percentage of edits in the namespaces (I look specifically at mainspace and projectspace, but other namespaces are good too), etc.
- I will then check the candidate's user page (if any). This is usually a quick review, but I want to know who I am dealing with and what their interest(s) are. Is there anything (such as an offensive user box or message) that is a red flag? Have they contributed to article building/VFA/GA? Does it have a "MySpace/Facebook" feel (which I do not like)?
- I will then check the candidate's talk page and archives for the past year. Are they civil? Do people treat them like admins? Do people seek them out? Are they being asked questions or are others coming to the page to tell them their mistakes? How do they respond to criticism? Do they have any warning templates? What can I learn about the candidate from their talk page? Hopefully, they respond to the comments on their talk page and not the other persons (responding on other people's pages can leave an incorrect impression with the reviewer and will generally add an hour or more to the review time.)
- I will check the candidate's contributions. Are their edits meaningful (the answer to this should be "yes" for a closer chance for me to support)? Are their edits constructive (the answer to this should be "yes" for a closer chance for me to support)? Do they show good communication with others and the community in general (the answer to this should be "yes" for a closer chance for me to support)? Does it look like the editor cares more about the quantity of edits than the quality of edits (the answer to this should be "no" for a closer chance for me to support)?
How I !vote change
Strong support – Means that I am familiar with the candidate very well and have spent a lot of time reviewing them. A strong support means that I've known the candidate for months AND have given them a complete review and not found any problems. If you are a candidate I first learned about via RfA, then you won't get a strong support. Strong support is reserved for people whom I have grown to trust over time and had that trust reaffirmed via a detailed review. I realize our small community should know just about all the active users, but there may be some you have not noticed very often and the first time you actually notice them is through RfA. That is an example when I won't strong support since I really only got to know the candidate through RfA.
Support – Means I have spent a decent amount of time reviewing your edits in detail and didn't find anything that I couldn't live with or that concerns me very much at all.
Weak support – Means nothing jumps out at me while I was reviewing the candidate. I use weak support because I don't want others to rely upon my review. It could also mean that I am overall pleased, but that there were some minor concerns.
Weak oppose – Means the candidate doesn't have the experience that I am looking for (length of tenure and/or number of edits) but that you are otherwise a solid candidate. Weak oppose may also be based upon a gut or bad feeling. Generally, I won't spend too much time justifying a weak oppose. I figure it's a weak oppose for a reason.
Oppose – Means the candidate is failing in some way. I will generally write out a detailed explanation as to why I give an oppose. I will often spend more time on a candidate than when I support.
Strong oppose – Means that I honestly believe that passing the candidate would be a mistake. I will never give a strong oppose without giving firm reasons for the !vote and diffs/examples supporting the position. I will generally spend the most time reviewing candidates with a strong oppose as I want to ensure that it is appropriate.
Nominations change
Sometimes I may want to nominate an editor for adminship. This is mainly because I had positive interactions with the editor, I think the editor passes my requests for adminship criteria, I think the candidate will do just fine as an administrator, and that I (and by my own judgement, the community) trust you enough to become an administrator.
As a general rule, I will not nominate someone that comes to my talkpage asking me to nominate them, regardless of the quality of their contributions. I'll find you (or someone else will) eventually, and the best candidates in my experience really are those that are just "going about their business" and are in need of extra tools to "go about their business". (taken from en:User:Keeper76/RfA#Past_nominations)
If I decide to nominate an editor for adminship, I will do the following:
- I will ask if you want to become an administrator or not and if I could nominate you.
- If you accept, I will ask if you had any other co-noms that have asked if they could nominate you before (do not ask them, make sure they have asked you). If you decline... then that's that. I might ask if you want to become an administrator in the future (that is, if you still meet my criteria and if you still want to become an administrator).
- I will then ask the candidate if they wanted me to be the main nominator (the first one to write a nomination, which is the one that is longer than the rest, preferably), the co-nominator (the one who adds his/her nomination 2nd after the main nominator which is generally shorter than the main nominator), or the last nominator (the one who adds his/her nomination 3rd after the co-nominator which is generally shorter than the main nominator).
- When the candidate is ready to make the RfA live (I will ask you first) (meaning your RfA is added to the WP:RFA page), you, me, or any other nominator (depending on your decision) will do so.
After the RfA is live, make sure you stick around Simple Wikipedia for at least about three hours to answer any questions that come up and any comment that needs responding to by you. Make sure you can check in a few times a day to make sure everything is alright.
Hopefully, the RfA will be successful and you will probably become an administrator. If I nominate you, I wish you luck if you accept.
Past RfA nominations change
| User page | RfA link and tally | Time span | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| American Eagle | RfA – 25/0 | July 6 – July 12 | Successful RfA – 2nd most supports ever! The consensus was so clear and obvious that the RfA was closed one day earlier. |
| Cassandra | RfA – 21/2 | July 31 – August 7 | Successful RfA – One oppose moved to neutral after RfA was closed. It would have been 21/1, but the official tally was 21/2 |
| Kennedy | RfA – 17/0 | October 3 – October 11 | Successful RfA – I forgot to support the candidate myself even if I did nominate... |
| Matilda | RfA – 14/11 | November 25 – December 1 | No consensus |
| Mentifisto | RfA – 19/7 | May 10 – May 17 | Successful RfA |
| Shappy | RfA – 21/1 | May 17 – May 23 | Successful RfA |
Last updated by Chris G Bot (talk) on 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
See also change
- Wikipedia:Administrators
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Criteria for administratorship
- User:RyanCross
- Based on en:User:Balloonman/RfA Criteria