User:Junglecat/RfA Thoughts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thoughts on Request for Adminship:

Important Note: Keep in mind that this is not an official policy on Wikipedia, this is only the opinion of myself and perhaps some other editors. Some users in the past have participated in RfA’s and have put together what they call "their criteria". I am not saying there is any thing wrong in that, as some Wikipedians have used this method well. However, I feel that some in the past have not used good judgment and this has caused a backlash from others. This is not my "criteria", but more a "guide" to a better RfA process.

Another Note: The Some of the bulleted sections below may apply to any RfA (see below), and that this is a "work" in progress. If you feel that something here is inappropriate, or something is needed, you are free to delete, modify, or add to it proper material. -JC

Along with wanting the advanced tools, RfA’s can be a "barometer" that candidates can use to reveal what the others in the Wiki community think about them. Even if an RfA is initiated to make a point (and this has happened), this is a sensitive time to the candidate. Let us not attack the candidate if it is obvious that the RfA doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance. That being said, here are a few suggestions or thoughts to ponder:

• Assume Good Faith - It is one thing to "pile-on" support when it comes to an obviously great candidate. I think we all like to do it as it a celebration of hard work and great interaction within the project. However, piling on the oppose side of an RfA against a candidate that lacks the experience, has a bad interaction history with others, etc is not exactly a good thing to do if it is turning for the worse, or "snowballing". Unless you need to express something of a real concern or reveal another "fault" the candidate should work on, it is usually not a good idea. Most likely the candidate will get an overwhelming feeling of rejection by the Wiki community, and this could lead to the user becoming discouraged. Even worse, this could aggravate the candidate. We do not want to loose any good users who are helping us put this project together, after all – not one of us is paid for our hard work (at least I think :-). Sometimes the RfA is initiated in bad faith, but most often, assume good faith on the candidate.

• When is "piling on" oppose not necessary? - There is no magic number. Sometimes a candidate may be new to Wiki and the user thinks they are ready for adminship. They may not understand what they are really asking for. It may take a while for them to realize the RfA isn’t going to make it. Sometimes, they may be holding out for some support or acceptance (i.e. Does someone… anyone like my work?) So if you must enter an oppose input, do so constructively. Remember, just like nominations of articles for deletion, RfA’s are not "votes". Wikipedia and the RfA process is not a democracy. (Yes, I know… sad… ‘sniff, wiping a small tear from eye…) A good way to tell when the opposes are "getting out of hand" or "snowballing" is when you see others entering Neutral input to prevent a the snowballing effect, or see others giving the "Moral Support" to keep the candidate from being discouraged.

• Edit Count - Most often, the community will use a minimum time registered and edit count (typically 3 months and 3000 edits) to judge if a user has enough experience to be an admin. This is basically a "probation" time that lets the community see the candidate’s contributions and interaction with others. Keep in mind that many candidates feel they are ready for the advanced role even though they have not hit the "magic" 3000 mark. Believe it or not, this could be the case. Do not penalize a good candidate who uses the preview button. This person may have been a great anon user for a while and then decided to register to build a traceable record. Remember, you should always look for quality editing from a candidate when it comes to RfA (after all, building this encyclopedia is the most important consideration). On the other end of the scale, a candidate may look good at first, but may have hit the "magic number" by doing what I and others call cheap edits. I have literally spotted users deleting spaces from articles (not that they were not doing something good, but it was something they could rack up quick edits). The way I see it, it is really easy to hit "delete". It takes time and effort to write a good article which is interesting, avoids copyright issues, has references, etc. At least in my book, its quality over quantity that matters. I have spent hours using word to put an article together and submitted it, only to have some user or a bot come by and put a bullet on an external link that I somehow missed. Guess what? We both get 1 added to our edit count – the difference: one user is building an encyclopedia, the other got a "cheap edit". Again, nothing wrong with cheap edits, just don’t anticipate getting an admin role with that kind of edit history. I will say it again: Do not penalize a solid candidate who uses the preview button.

• Injecting an Oppose with no explanation - Unless you want the possibility of others to get hostile with you – Don’t do it! Especially, do not do it against popular candidates who appear to most people as solid, great candidates. Remember, as mentioned before, RfA’s are not votes or straw polls. If you participate in an RfA, give constructive praise or criticism and use good discretion on how you say it. Sometimes it’s not what you say, but how you say it. Do not get into the habit of saying "Oppose, fails my criteria." You have not told us anything. What is your criteria? And, opposing & providing a link to a page that has "your criteria" isn’t a proper input either. If the community or even one person reacts against you for your improper participation in an RfA, that is on you! Also, keep in mind that Opposing, and expressing concern per another previous user’s oppose is acceptable (like this: Oppose per User:_____ ). However, if that is all your input is, have you really said anything or provided something we don’t already know? This is just something to think about.

• Last but not least - We are all human. We have all made mistakes in some form or other. Let us work together as a team and build this project. If you must participate in the RfA’s do so boldly, but also remember that there is a human being there in the spotlight with feelings up on that stage. It takes human endurance to take harsh criticism. The world outside can be a cruel place sometimes, so let’s try to keep our world here at Wikipedia a better place. – JC.