 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, often referred to as RfA, is the process by which administrators are chosen on Wikipedia. This process is done through the utilization of a consensus vote, with the options of support, oppose, or neutral in regard to whether one thinks the RfA candidate is qualified to be an administrator. The current process, begun in 2004,[1] was created with the phrase "Adminship is no big deal" in mind. This process was initially effective, but the success rate of RfAs began an ongoing decline in 2007, as there were more promotions in the period between 2004 and 2007 (1388) than the period between 2008 and 2011 (672).
On Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, numerous editors have said that RfA is "broken", and that something needs to be done about it. One of the most commonly stated opinions is that RfA has become the perfect arena for getting away with incivility and failure to assume good faith. While this opinion isn't agreed upon by all editors, most editors do agree that there are issues with incivility and failure to assume good faith on several RfAs. Editors also cite this as a reason why the number of successful candidates (and overall RfAs) has been decreasing since 2007. This is probably not the only reason why RfAs are becoming less numerous, but it is cited as one of the major reasons.
For the purpose of encouraging better behavior on RfA, this essay has been written to describe the do's and don't's of RfA voting.
- ^ Although RfA was officially established in 2003, it wasn't until 2004 that the consensus vote options were established.