Wikipedia talk:Advice for RfA candidates

← BACK to advice page

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Bikeshed proposals #9487209 and #9487210

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Bikeshed proposals #9487209 and #9487210. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Houseblaster/Advice for RfA candidates

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Houseblaster/Advice for RfA candidates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for those planning to nominate themselves

I previously had an idea for advice to those planning to nominate themselves. I suggest that before proceeding, they are advised to seek out a certain number of supporters. Pulling an arbitrary number out of air, let's start with ten. This would provide a reality check, and give the potential candidate some confidence that their contributions are valued, even if they subsequently make a request for adminship that is terminated early due to overwhelming opposition. (I appreciate that getting this advice to those who could benefit from it isn't easy.) What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say that sounds like good advice; ideally asking people who have participated in previous RfA(s).

I also think that we might want to add a bit about how having one or two people you can discuss questions / vent / etc. via email is helpful (in other words, advise against self noms). This is RFA advice, not RFA how-to. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If possible, I'd like to discuss that idea separately, since I think it is more suited to the type of candidate willing to seek counsel from a nominator. (The current page already advises against self-nominations for most editors). I think a reality check is best suited for those who are, for various reasons, reluctant to have a private discussion with an advisor, and either isn't interested in having an optional poll or not receptive to the feedback given there. isaacl (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will start a new section for that. Still support your proposed change :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing advice about infobox

In a previous thread, I had suggested removing the following sentences from Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates § Nominations: Nevertheless, the user category the box added your name to is regularly reviewed by experienced editors and admins who are actively looking for suitable candidates to nominate. If they believe you to be a potential candidate, they will contact you – probably by email, so be sure to have Wikipedia email enabled. I'm doubtful that the category is actually used by nominators to look for candidates. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've never used the category and happy for that statement to be weakened or removed. I do look at people who got an AWOT recently, even though I've not figured out a good system for that yet. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For anyone else like me who is unfamilar with that abbreviation, I presume the reference is to {{Administrator without tools}} (there isn't a shortcut to the template using that abbreviation, though there is a corresponding Wikipedia page that does have a shortcut using those letters). (At first I thought you were saying you hadn't figured out a good system for identifying who recently received the template on their user talk page, but as I see you are signed up for notifications, I assume you mean a system for evaluating the editors.) isaacl (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Regarding this edit: the meaning of the lead sentence is changed from "The adminstrator role is given to editors who have the necessary high level of X to be trusted by the community." to "The administrator role is given to editors who have consistent proficiency and mastery with the necessary high level of X." I think the original formulation is closer to the mark. The new wording implies that editors who have achieved a certain level of proficiency become administrators, whereas the previous wording implies that the community assigns administrative privileges to editors it trusts, with the editors' skills being a key factor in how it determines trust. The new wording also is a bit confusing regarding to what admins are expected to have mastered and be proficient in. I think something like "have consistently demonstrated a high level of X" would be more clear (with either the old or new text). isaacl (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I dislike the new wording for a different reason: it makes the sentence overly complicated. Prefer the old wording (which may have been my tweaks). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

To focus on the shift in meaning I didn't get into a related issue: the wording "proficiency and mastery" would typically refer to something in which the editor is proficient and has mastered. The sentence doesn't make clear what that something is, though, which makes it a bit confusing. I think that consistently demonstrating a high level of X conveys the same meaning, which is why I suggested that wording. I also suggest rewording the end of the sentence, since a high level of temperament and behaviour doesn't make sense. Maybe something like "The administrator role on Wikipedia is a special permission granted by the community to editors it trusts. Editors gain trust by consistently demonstrating a high level of knowledge, judgement, and experience with editing Wikipedia, and by exhibiting suitable temperament and behaviour to act as an administrator." isaacl (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I like that wording, feels more eloquent too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

As per my previous comment, I propose changing the first two sentences to the following: The administrator role on Wikipedia is a special permission granted by the community to editors it trusts. Editors gain trust by consistently demonstrating a high level of knowledge, judgement, and experience with editing Wikipedia, and by exhibiting suitable temperament and behaviour to act as an administrator. isaacl (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I plan on implementing this proposed change. isaacl (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)