Jump to content

User:Ritchie333/RfA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"We don't need lifetime admins; fresh blood and regular turnover in volunteer corps are essential; admins are no exception."

Levivich[1]

I have recommended several editors to be administrators by nominating or co-nominating them at a request for adminship. Some were successful, some weren't. You can see a full list below.

Anyone who would be a good administrator doesn't want to be one.

One of the main reasons I'm interested in looking for RfA candidates is that good, trustworthy and qualified administrators are unlikely to naturally present themselves, and need to be encouraged to run. Conversely, somebody with an "I want to be an admin" template on their user page probably won't be.[2]

The procedure for selecting administrators involves publicising them for a week to the entire world, and let anyone and everyone comment. Trying to get the entire world to agree on something is impossible, and consequently RfA is often described as "a horrible and broken process", and attempts to find specific people or things wrong with it is doomed to failure. It's been looked at again, again and again to no avail, and I think that's because human nature prevents it from being an easy and fair process.

That said, the end result of an RfA that lasts the full seven days of discussion generally does end up being reasonable. If a candidate is unsuccessful, editors will often talk to them afterwards, distilling the opposition into a straightforward summary along with a word of encouragement.

My RfA nomination criteria

I don't have any specific criteria for who should be an admin. Different people can contribute different things. What I look for in an administrator is not what everyone else looks for, and consequently my personal opinion won't necessarily be enough for someone to pass RfA. However, when nominating these are a couple of basic things I look at, along with some examples of RfAs that I think passed because of those qualities.

  • Communication - The most important thing is administrators must be excellent communicators. If a brand new user is upset because you deleted their article created in good faith, they're going to be completely nonplussed if you say "that's what the policy says, guv". I want to see a good example of where you said something profound or insightful - it's difficult to quantify this, but I know it when I see it. If we've worked on a GA review together, or helped close down a prickly ANI thread, that's generally a good sign. (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN)
  • Controversy - No heavy editing in controversial areas, including but not limited to anything under Arbcom discretionary sanctions. No trips to ANI (unless it was from a "bad actor" or troll and quickly closed as "not at fault"). If this sounds unfair, it's because it is, but these sort of people don't pass RfA without a lot of other qualities and a great deal of encouragement. (eg. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Galobtter, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvergreenFir)
  • Content - I think all admins should create content. FAs are great, GAs are sufficient, lots of DYKs will do. Even if you're passionately negative about the GA / FA process being unnecessarily bureaucratic, that's also fine. However, I start every nomination with a brief resume of what content the candidate writes about, and if I see lots of reverting and templating in your mainspace contributions, I won't be able to do that. A shibboleth is you have been awarded "Precious" by Gerda Arendt. Just writing content without taking part in any of the traditional admin areas is possible, but difficult. (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ergo Sum)
  • AfD - Deletion debates are one of the best ways to see how an editor behaves around people who disagree with them. Around 50 debates is enough to gain an overall pattern. I pay particular interest to AfDs where the candidate disagreed with the overall consensus, as these can frequently get a good insight of an editor's dispute resolution skills. (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cordless Larry) I also like to see AfDs where the candidate improved the article resulting in a much clearer "keep" consensus at the end. (eg: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl)

Note that the criteria for nominating is substantially higher than simply supporting an RfA. For example, I am generally more tolerant of incivility if it's a rare one-off done in the "heat of a moment" and against a substantial amount of content creation and I tend to be more forgiving about old blocks for edit-warring. Conversely, other voters are less worried about templated messages.

Other criteria

[edit]

Many other editors have their own RfA criteria. Here are some I pay particular attention to myself when looking at candidates:

My nominations

[edit]

Total : 40 Total successful : 32 Percentage successful : 80%

Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally Report
S O N %
Colin M RfA Successful 9 Apr 2022 178 0 3 100 report
Less Unless RfA Successful 23 May 2021 160 4 4 98 report
Ashleyyoursmile RfA Successful 22 May 2021 224 6 4 97 report
TJMSmith RfA Successful 22 Feb 2021 174 2 2 99 report
John M Wolfson RfA Successful 25 Oct 2020 154 0 2 100 report
L293D RfA Withdrawn 17 Sep 2020 36 25 4 59 report
Eddie891 RfA Successful 19 Aug 2020 200 0 0 100 report
Red Phoenix2 RfA Successful 30 Jul 2020 232 1 1 100 report
Lee Vilenski RfA Successful 12 Mar 2020 163 3 1 98 report
Money emoji RfA Successful 22 Feb 2020 153 66 6 70 report
CASSIOPEIA RfA Withdrawn 13 Feb 2020 86 39 3 69 report
Nick Moyes RfA Successful 23 Jan 2020 180 3 3 98 report
Rosguill RfA Successful 23 Dec 2019 161 1 0 99 report
Newslinger RfA Successful 23 Dec 2019 135 4 2 97 report
EvergreenFir RfA Successful 15 Nov 2019 252 42 5 86 report
Valereee RfA Successful 7 Jul 2019 231 8 12 97 report
Kosack RfA Successful 7 Jul 2019 167 15 9 92 report
HickoryOughtShirt?4 RfA Successful 1 May 2019 182 19 9 91 report
Enterprisey2 RfA Successful 26 Jan 2019 253 2 2 99 report
Galobtter RfA Successful 7 Dec 2018 208 46 12 82 report
Philafrenzy RfA No consensus 28 Aug 2018 143 80 19 64 report
Jbhunley RfA No consensus 6 Aug 2018 196 86 10 70 report
Cordless Larry RfA Successful 1 Apr 2018 175 10 1 95 report
331dot RfA Successful 29 Mar 2018 186 5 4 97 report
Lourdes2 RfA Successful 26 Feb 2018 207 3 1 99 report
Joe Roe RfA Successful 30 Nov 2017 169 2 7 99 report
Megalibrarygirl RfA Successful 16 Oct 2017 282 3 0 99 report
Headbomb4 RfA Unsuccessful 16 Oct 2017 72 85 10 46 report
SoWhy2 RfB Unsuccessful 31 Jul 2017 115 44 8 72 report
Cullen328 RfA Successful 23 Jul 2017 316 2 3 99 report
GeneralizationsAreBad2 RfA Successful 13 Jul 2017 205 0 2 100 report
Anarchyte2 RfA Successful 7 Jul 2017 166 6 0 97 report
CaroleHenson RfA Withdrawn 9 Mar 2017 12 5 4 71 report
Dodger672 RfA Successful 29 Jan 2017 133 9 4 94 report
Primefac2 RfA Successful 16 Jan 2017 111 21 4 84 report
Ealdgyth RfA Successful 10 Jan 2017 250 0 2 100 report
Schwede66 RfA Successful 6 Jan 2017 162 1 0 99 report
Ivanvector RfA Successful 27 Dec 2016 213 6 0 97 report
Yash! RfA Withdrawn 9 Dec 2016 55 11 3 83 report
Jo-Jo Eumerus RfA Successful 5 Jul 2016 168 3 1 98 report

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Request_for_comment/Adminship_term_length&diff=1011193216&oldid=1011187545
  2. ^ "User talk:Cullen328". 16 October 2017.