Wikipedia talk:Advice for RfA candidates

← BACK to advice page

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)

Admin knighthood

How does one become an admins and what are the most important tips for such an appointment Farmer4-89 (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Did...did you not read the main page before making this comment? Here's a helpful link: Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. I'll note upfront that there's no possibility that you'll be approved as an admin with only ten edits to your name. DonIago (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip Farmer4-89 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

My apologies Farmer4-89 (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

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)