Wikipedia talk:Advice for RfA candidates

← BACK to advice page

61%

Is this supposed to act as a ref to a case where 61% support !votes resulted in a successful rfa? I actually amounts to 70.7%. Suraj T 10:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, by linking to an RFA that actually passed with about 61% support. Graham87 07:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

“Twinkle CSD menu” link in After your RfA section

The “Twinkle CSD menu” link simply points to the Twinkle project page which at least presently says nothing about the CSD menu. Perhaps the target should be changed. —teb728 t c 23:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the recommendation of using a userbox template

See the arguments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday for why this needs removed, in practice this is a bit of a trap. I boldly edited it out, was reverted, so now here's the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel it's unworthy of this project to have a template of this nature that's a trap. Given that the consensus was to keep the template, perhaps editors should AGF instead of treating its use with cynicism? If it's being intentionally kept as a trap...I would have a significant problem with that mindset. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Doniago - It's not intentionally a trap, but for whatever reason, there's a significant subset of editors who seem to think that wanting to be an admin means you're unqualified to be an admin. So unless that mindset changes, there's a bit of harm there. The advice on this page was written at a different time, when that template apparently helped people, but I don't think we should keep that recommendation up, now that things have changed. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I have personal experience with forums where expressing a desire to be a moderator can lead to one's odds of being considered for the job diminishing. However, on those forums the people in a position to judge are also very clear about the situation; they don't create an "I might like to be a moderator" button that will disqualify anyone who pushes it. If individual editors feel that expressing a desire to be an admin makes one unqualified, those editors need, for lack of a better expression off the top of my head, an attitude adjustment. However, the template appears to have been kept in good faith, so I feel that our messaging should express similar good faith. DonIago (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest removing the following sentences from Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates#Are you ready?: 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. While I imagine there are some exceptions, I suspect most experienced editors spend more time looking through their network of editors they've encountered, and rarely look at the category. Although the immediately preceding sentence (Young or new users who have an I want to be an admin userbox may wait a very long time before they are proposed...) weakly implies that the userbox has some effect, it's more of a warning to temper expectations than an endorsement for using the user box. isaacl (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the point in retaining the userbox at all if it's going to be (or already has been) rendered largely or entirely useless? If the consensus to keep it was predicated on false assumptions then it was a bad consensus. DonIago (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one in the deletion discussion made the assumption that the userbox was being used by experienced editors to find candidates to nominate. Broadly speaking, they didn't feel that editors should be discouraged from using the user box, nor did they feel it should (in isolation) be held against such editors during a request for administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• When I wrote this guide nearly 10 years ago, I composed it to be as objective as possible - and to please as many people as possible - at a time when a great deal of research was being carried out, and based on the discussion of that research/reform project. It was written at a different time, but I disagree that that template apparently helped people. While I don't appreciate PythonSwarm's edits earlier this year (only 625 edits to Wikipedia and since since blocked and locked), which IMO should be reverted, most of the other edits are improvements and have been made by highly experienced editors who know what they are talking about. It's not a policy, it's not even in an official 'Help' or 'Guide' namespace but this essay has had almost 17,700 pageviews and has certainly become the de facto RfA candidates' advice.

I concur with Doniago, and Ritchie333's MfD nomination for that template was spot on: This template is a bit of a standing joke, and possibly a dangerous one for those who won't be familiar with the background. I can't remember the last time somebody had this userbox on their page and passed RfA; indeed, several people have said that suitable admin candidates will NOT have this template on their user page,. I think we should just get rid of this to stop leading misguided newbies into assuming that they can somehow use this box and actually get the tools, and fully echoes the very sentiment I have always felt about it. As a one time active seeker for possible candidates for adminship, I did indeed review those users in the template's category, but only to almost always immediately discount them as possibles. I'm on record as having stated many times 'Anyone who joins Wikipedia with the intention of becoming an admin, has joined for all the wrong reasons' , and as far as I know, no one has proven me wrong.

Genuine, serious candidates read this guide while despite the instructions, most who start a poll at WP:ORCP don't, but just a few, and Hog Farm, are the exceptions. As far as as keeping or deleting the mentions of the template in this essay are concerned, I don't own what I have written and as largely retired from Wikipdia, I don't mind either way, but I think a strong consensus should be reached first and that would mean involving at least SMcCandlish, WereSpielChequers, Mz7, SilkTork, Chris troutman and other contributors in the discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted PythonSwarm's edits barely an hour after they were made.

I don't think anyone should be encouraged to use this userbox. It's just setting them up to be attacked in their RfA. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

So, the way I see the userbox situation at this point involves three possibilities:

1. A significant portion of editors reference the userbox to find editors who may be suitable for adminship, in which case the userbox is useful and should be retained. Editors who are using the userbox as a basis for opposing adminship should be discouraged from doing so.
2. A significant portion of editors reference the userbox to find editors they would not consider suitable for adminship, in which case the userbox is terrible and should be destroyed with prejudice.
3. An insignificant portion of editors pay any attention to the userbox, in which case it's largely pointless and a little misleading but not actively harmful.

It's difficult for me to provide any further guidance on what the guide should say when I have no sense for what the prevailing viewpoint is. Without having a clear sense of what editors feel with regards to the userbox, the most I think we can say is a horribly wishy-washy "Putting this userbox on your page may increase the odds that an editor will reach out to you about running for adminship. But you may also encounter a lot of opposition because you put this userbox on your page." DonIago (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Honestly, my opinion is that it's probably best to deprecate use of the template, or to put a warning in the template documentation or something. And then remove/rewrite the recommendation here, as past its life span. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Around 2015 I used the template to reach out to editors in order to give them some guidance about adminship, and if appropriate nominate them. One of those I contacted, User:Amortias, later went on to become an admin. He still had the template on his page when he was nominated around two years later: [1], but it was not mentioned in his RfA. I'm not sure how much you can draw from that one example, but here is a case where the template prompted a positive response, and where it did not hinder the candidate in their RfA. Other such examples, either positive or negative, would be helpful in reaching a decision regarding advice on using it. SilkTork (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Kudpung's voting criteria list not having that userbox as the most important criterion, though perhaps this is out-of-date as he supported Amortias. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 23:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Some people have difficulty in properly understanding my 'laundry list', Adrian. It's really just a check list for myself to ensure that I do thorough research before voting. I do state that I look for a balance among those list items, and these are the things that taken together are interpreted by less serious readers as being a harsh set of criteria, when in fact they are actually some of the least restrictive to obtaining RfA suppoort. Like Wikipedia has WP:IAR, my comment 'Note: I often make exceptions to these criteria by taking an aggregate of the candidate's performance.' is the most important one. So it's not out of date.

I cast my vote early and at that time the concerns of the many opposers and neutral commenters had not been voiced, but in hindsight I don't think they would have swayed me to change sides. As an RfA, it was certainly a very interesting one. That said, and please interpret this as a fact SilkTork and not as bad faith, this pattern of editing could possibly illustrate points 28 & 30 on my list and makes for an interesting theory. However, one can of course retire for any number of reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That is interesting and somewhat unfortunate in the circumstances. I don't think, however, that there is a necessary correlation between a user indicating they wish to become an admin, and then tailing off to apparent retirement shortly after becoming an admin as there are so many possible reasons for that. Admins are sometimes exposed to criticism or abuse because of the decisions they make, and this can be harder to take than people imagine before they are an admin, especially if the community decides a decision was wrong. I have noted that some people regard admins as having more power than non-admins - I have always seen it as having more responsibility, and sometimes that responsibility can weigh heavy, and take away some of the pleasure of working on Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• If there is any doubt (and there clearly is), this guide should not advise using that template. It need not advise against using it, and instead just remain silent on the matter, if there's doubt in the other direction (and there seems to be that as well). I think this could possibly be obviated entirely by merging this and several similar userboxes into one called something like {{Not presently an administrator}}, with text reading something like "This user is not presently an administrator, but might consider becoming one in the future."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish That merger would be a very worthy compromise, but it would still be exploited by new users joining with the express intent of climbing a greasy pole. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this guide should no longer recommend use of the template; we no longer need RfA candidates to self-identify. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Diversity

We've got

• Diversity: Candidates who have only been active in a limited number of areas (see pie chart) , or who intend to be active in specific areas only will usually incur significant opposition. As the tools can also be used in many areas in which the candidate is less familiar, a relatively broad scope of previous activity in policy and decision making is expected.

This seems like it might not be an issue. I ran basically as "I'll help out at DYK" a year after the referenced RfA. No one brought up that narrow focus as a problem. —valereee (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Typically, a concern is raised for editors who are narrowly focused on a specific technical area (to the exclusion of content), or who exclusively work on content with no edits related to administrative tasks, so there's no track record for things like deletion discussions. In essence, the passage advises that the community anticipates the possibility that candidates may broaden their interests, and so their suitability to use the entire set of administrative privileges may be evaluated. Of course, each individual request for adminship may progress down different paths. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there recent evidence that a narrow focus will "incur significant opposition"? Is it a lack of content creation that's really the problem? "Significant opposition" is a really strong statement. What recent evidence are we seeing? —valereee (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My apologies: I'm not sufficiently opinionated about the text to dig into past RfAs (and I don't really want to stir old pots). Thus I'm only going from memory that there have been some candidates in the two categories I mentioned that have had to convince the community that granting administrative privileges was warranted, given the lack of track record in some of the areas used to evaluate community trust. Coming at it from the advice direction, personally I think the key point is that it's a good idea for a potential candidate to be active in various administrative-related areas and content areas. Perhaps the advice could be re-written to emphasize this aspect. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Responding to questions

Regarding this edit: I disagree with the advice that It is usually a bad idea for an RFA candidate to respond to anything in the RFA that is not an official question in the questions section. The issue is not replying in itself; it's appearing argumentative, defensive, and unresponsive to feedback. When candidates have responded thoughtfully in a considered manner, the interaction has been appreciated. Being defensive is a normal reaction and it's good advice to warn candidates to be on guard for it. But I don't think we do anyone or the process any favours by advising against all dialogue outside of the questions. isaacl (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It is usually a bad idea in my opinion. Not always. But usually and a person in the middle of something as fraught as an RfA may not be in the right mindset to make that determination with the same accuracy they could in other contexts and so I think advice quoted above is good advice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think rather than focusing on the potential reaction from others (replying to oppose votes can generate accusations of badgering and bludgeoning), the advice should focus on what the candidate should do: respond thoughtfully in a way that doesn't badger or bludgeon, or avoid responding if the candidate doesn't think they can do that. But I also think this is true even when the candidate is responding to questions, and so the advice should be generalized. isaacl (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - In terms of "advice", the instruction is sage, as written. One of the hardest things an admin may ever have to do is recuse their own participation in a matter where they are heavily vested and clearly involved, yet it will often be the required protocol. A candidate, being the most involved in their own RfA, couldn't do better than to demonstrate this ability by following this advice without equivocation. In my opinion, the advice could express this importance more forcefully, even belaboring the rationale, because it's just that important.--John Cline (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done well it can be helpful and can improve a candidate's chances, done badly it is counterproductive. From the experience of my own RFas and the many where I have been a nominator, I'd advise doing it where appropriate. Staying stumm is a tactic that works in some RFA situations, but doesn't show the qualities we expect of an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)