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. |
RfA or Requests for Adminship is the area of Wikipedia where the editorial community has the opportunity to have a comprehensive discussion regarding whether a particular editor can be trusted with the extra buttons endowed with after being granted Administrator rights. In short, it is where we elect system operators. Of course, there is division amongst editors as to the extent to which RfA is an actual discussion, with many feeling that it masquerades as a vote. From my experience, the latter seems to be more accurate as no-chance (see WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW) RfAs invariably fail, uncontentious (80%+) RfAs pass, and semi-contentious (borderline under 75%) undoubtedly fail.
Regardless, this means that applicants are subjected to a thorough examination and an almost microscopic scrutiny from the Wikipedia community as a whole, and nothing is clandestine. Ergo, it can be insufferably frustrating, grueling and disheartening to the candidate. However, the thing to remember is that it is only a discussion about the editor in the moment, not the person overall, thus, nothing should be taken personally. Admittedly, criticism is sometimes hard to digest, and it's difficult to deal with the disparity by which the editors cast their !vote. Different editors invariably have different criteria that they feel a candidate should meet.
These are my standard requirements for supporting a request for adminship. They are not immutable and may change over time.