947:. RfA contributors will make comments when they wish. RfA contributors will generally add additional questions to the standard three questions that currently are part of every RfA. Administrator nominees should stay involved on their RfAs so that they may answer these questions or any other comments raised on their RfA. Absence by the nominee from the RfA process during the seven days it is open can harm the chances of success. While it is appropriate to respond to comments and questions raised on the RfA, it is important to keep in mind that the RfA is not a forum for debate except as it closely relates to the nominee's acceptability as an administrator. Poor behavior by an RfA candidate will generally have negative consequences.
431:. Editors who regard being an administrator as an affirmation of their contributions as an editor or an award for good editing or other good service will generally be disappointed. Administrator status does not place you in an elevated status within Knowledge (XXG). Since many editors believe administrators should follow a more strict code of conduct than the average user, the opposite may occur. Every good-faith editor, from the newest editor to the most experienced bureaucrat, has the same status within Knowledge (XXG). You will not gain respect simply by being an administrator. Adminship is, in essence, janitorial duties for Knowledge (XXG). (Hence the mop used to symbolise administratorship.)
376:. Many administrator nominations for editors with low edit counts have been rejected for this alone, although some have succeeded. With fewer edits, you should be prepared to respond to this objection, or, better, explain in your nomination acceptance why you think you would nevertheless make a good administrator. Editors with a limited length of time of active experience on Knowledge (XXG) can expect similar concerns. If you are unsure if you have enough edits or experience, consider asking another Wikipedian or two that you trust before leaping into an RfA.
867:) to be answered by the nominee. When you craft a nomination for someone, including yourself, you should outline in the nomination statement why you think the nominee should be an administrator. You might offer some information on where the nominee has done significant work, areas where the nominee has already helped out with administrator appropriate tasks, how long they have been with the project, and their ability to handle stressful situations. Single-line nomination statements will do little to aid the nominee, and may hinder the RfA.
889:. You can advise the nominee on their answers to the questions, fix any errors that might have been made on the RfA either by yourself or the nominee, and generally prepare the RfA for a successful run. Common errors include not formatting the closing date properly, not officially accepting the nomination on the RfA, and the nominee voting for themselves. Poorly prepared RfAs are not looked upon well by RfA contributors as for some this shows a lack of careful attention to process and detail and a lack of respect for the RfA process.
413:" Administrators can be and often are more involved in contentious disputes than regular editors. If you think you will likely not respond well in such situations, perhaps being an administrator is not for you. Adminship is not a statement of worth or acceptance in the Knowledge (XXG) community. Some of the most valued and active editors have said they do not want to be administrators, and many administrators find that they prefer to contribute largely or solely by editing articles.
361:
809:. If a treatment has helped prevent symptoms then it's enough to say (eg) "since 201x meds have kept me largely free of symptoms". You don't need to disclose your entire medical history or describe your whole offline life. Users just need the information that lets them assess the degree of risk of impact, severity, mitigation and management for the project. You may want to ask another user you trust about the level of detail before you post.
106:
35:
474:. RfAs where an editor has mainly contributed in one way (little editing of articles, or little or no participation in AfDs, or little or no participation in discussions about Knowledge (XXG) policies and processes, for example) have tended to be more controversial than those where the editor's contributions have been wider.
401:
nomination without an explanation, please do not feel offended; it is most likely not personal. By the same token, you should be honest if you are voting on a nomination. Do not be afraid to oppose for fear of hurting the nominee's feelings. It is better to stay out of a nomination instead of voting dishonestly.
392:. RfA voters may also use standards that may seem perverse or irrational. It is generally not well looked upon for the nominee to question the validity or good faith of those standards. But while each RfA contributor may use whatever criteria they wish, you can ask them why they think a criterion is important.
586:: A persistent and unreformed vandal will never be made an administrator; one of the primary tasks of administrators is fighting vandalism (and a truly bad administrator could cause serious damage to the site). Even a relatively minor disruption, like making a joking edit to an article, can cause problems.
448:
The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination. A number of RfA contributors look askance at nominees who do not follow the instructions properly. Administrators are expected to read and follow policies. The inability to do this here is a bad sign.
400:
This does not make their votes inherently worthless. While it is generally regarded as poor form not to explain the rationale behind a vote, it is not required. Some contributors may not wish to explain their rationale because they wish to avoid creating a sense of piling on. If the user opposes your
1065:
and seeing which bureaucrat removed the RfA from the page. Bureaucrats do have the option of extending RfAs where they think this is necessary. Another possibility is to wait for some time and either renominate yourself or have someone else nominate you for a second time. Many current administrators
1057:
when closing a request for adminship. As RfA is not a straightforward majority vote, there is no precise "pass" or "fail" percentage, and the bureaucrat may discount comments which were made in bad faith or are of questionable validity. However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you
1036:
The community is divided about successful candidates posting unpersonalised "thanks for voting" messages to voters' talk pages, though personalised thanks for particular reviews, comments and questions are perfectly in order. If you do send a message to everyone please respect those editors who have
267:
Some users find the level of scrutiny and frankness very difficult. Some editors have left
Knowledge (XXG) as a consequence of an RfA that has gone poorly. This should not happen, as this process does not judge an editor's value to Knowledge (XXG). There are many fine editors who would not make good
817:
If you have been involved in discussions on very controversial articles, your adminship may be a target for heated objections on the basis of your involvement in those pages. This may reduce your chances of becoming an administrator. In some cases voters may attempt to maintain a "balance of power"
263:
An RfA is a very open voting process where your record will be looked at by experienced (and sometimes opinionated) users who have already made up their minds about what kinds of people they want as administrators. An RfA is open to everybody, including anyone you may have had disagreements with in
140:
For an unprepared user, even a very valuable contributor, the process can be frustrating and disheartening. Under no circumstances should any editor, otherwise considering acceptance of a nomination, interpret the contents of this guide as a barrier to nomination. Accordingly, no
Wikipedian should
761:
endorsed adminship for people who have chronic or serious clinical conditions, schizophrenia being one example. Such conditions are not necessarily "blockers" at RFA. Legitimate concerns would include impact on the project, impact on your judgment and interactions, capacity to cause "blow-ups" or
974:
on whether they should be removed. Nevertheless, some bureaucrats and other parties occasionally do remove RfAs that are going poorly. You should not take offense if this happens; it is being done to protect you from ill will that may be generated by the RfA. If you did not wish to have your RfA
916:
Either you or another editor may nominate you to be an administrator. Anyone can be an administrator, and anyone can nominate a candidate. However, keep in mind that nominees who have not been on
Knowledge (XXG) for very long are not necessarily well regarded, as they are less likely to perform
1150:
Admins who resigned voluntarily, under uncontroversial circumstances, can ask to skip RfA. Upon a review to confirm that the user both was in good standing at the time of the de-adminship and is in good standing currently, a bureaucrat may restore access rights. If there is any question that
847:
Nominators should be careful in their decision to nominate someone for administrator status. As noted above, the RfA process can lead to unsavory results. A nominator should consider the possibility of the negative impact on a nominee, and ensure they are making appropriate nominations.
259:
is generated on whether an editor should be given administrator privileges. An editor should not construe the outcome of an RfA as praise or condemnation of their efforts as an editor. Instead, it is an evaluation of their likely ability to appropriately use administrator rights.
1023:
at the very bottom of the page, remove the entire line that contains the "Voice your opinion on this candidate" link and replace it with '''Final''', change the ending date to the date you withdrew, and update the final tally of votes. Additionally, you should edit
1066:
did not pass their first nomination, yet had a later nomination easily succeed. In some cases, administrator nominees have tried more than twice. In one case, a nominee tried seven times. Your first nomination is not your only chance to become an administrator.
792:
Steps you would take to ensure the condition doesn't impact your editing or conduct if you pass RFA? For example, would you cease editing if you feel a bad period coming on, or would you be competent to decide not to use tools or take part in some issues, or
530:. Constructive and frequent use of edit summaries is a quality some RfA contributors want to see. If you haven't already set your defaults to force an edit summary with every edit, it is worth doing so before RFA and stating this in your application. See
796:
If your condition requires absence or non-responsiveness or disengagement at times, what steps have you taken to ensure these don't disrupt
Knowledge (XXG)? (Everyone takes breaks but some conditions cause absence or disengagement at zero
800:
If your condition has already been coped with during your editing history, can you show this? Users will be more convinced you can cope well in future (and it won't be disruptive) if you can show you have coped as an editor in the
747:. Responding in a calm, rational, and (if needed) apologetic manner will be to a candidate's credit. A candidate who shows anger or frustration or makes insults when presented with opposition is likely to engender more opposition.
982:
If you would like to withdraw your nomination after it has opened, you may do so simply by editing the RfA to strike out your acceptance of the nomination and indicating your desire to withdraw instead. To do this, place <s:
756:
Most users are sympathetic to special circumstances or serious conditions. However the well-being of the project and ability of a candidate to carry out adminship without undue stress and problems are paramount. The community
205:
The reality is that adminship is oriented to communal trust and confidence, not percentages and numbers, and each user will have their own way to assess candidates' readiness for the role. While anybody can apply, a review of
232:
Evidence of any concerns may also be raised and questions asked, for reassurance whether they will present concerns in future, and any other signs of helpfulness or work undertaken in the community will be seen positively.
578:
No matter how experienced you are, some actions will cause problems. In roughly decreasing order of seriousness, here are some things which, if seen in your edit history, will be raised and thoroughly discussed:
355:
can lead to intense open discussion. If you aren't experienced in handling conflicts, this can be distressing. On the other hand, you can take the experience as an opportunity to measure your skills in conflict
1486:
562:. Curt or uninformative answers to the standard questions are mildly offputting for some RfA contributors. Spend a bit of time preparing your answers; there is no time limit to the acceptance of a nomination.
486:. General reliability as evidence that you would use administrator rights carefully to avoid irreversible damage, especially in the stressful situations that can arise more frequently for administrators.
932:, the nomination is open for discussion. RfA subpages should not be commented on before being posted to RfA, nor should votes be cast on the RfA subpage until the nomination is posted to the RfA page.
786:
What effect does the condition, or "bad periods/days" have on you in terms of
Knowledge (XXG), stress, judgment, admin tools, "drama" and "fairness" (if applicable), or whatever else is relevant at RFA?
1438:
1350:
250:
959:
will review the RfA and close it. A bureaucrat will close the RfA as soon as this is feasible, which may be hours or even a day or two after the formal closing date. Do not remove your own RfA from
825:. You can note how you dealt with the controversy, cite example edits by you and your responses to uncivil comments made by others. In referring others to a past edit it can be useful to provide a "
540:
as evidence of good editing behavior (if you have any blocks from more than one year ago, people will expect an explanation as to how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again).
765:
If you are affected by a condition or circumstance that affects your editing or could do so, then you may wish to disclose it. If you do then readers will probably look for three main things:
1061:
If you feel that a nomination is wrongfully declared as unsuccessful, you may petition the bureaucrat who made the decision. This can usually be determined by looking at the page history of
917:
effectively as administrators and they are not widely known by RfA voters. It's considered good practice to approach the nominee first to find out whether they would accept the nomination.
1082:
on RfA and RfB, and granting rights on successful nominations; processing the removal of administrator rights due to inactivity or arbitration committee requests; determining consensus for
842:
114:
1387:
1209:
544:
These points are not mandatory and there are always exceptions, but if you think back over your contributions and any of these is missing, it may be better to broaden your experience
823:"Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?"
1037:
put "no
Thankspam" messages on their talk page, and make sure your thank you does not look like a barnstar. A perfectly acceptable alternative is to post a thanks message instead
892:
While voting is in progress, be ready to answer any enquiries the applicant puts to you. Should the process go sour, consider advising the applicant of the option to withdraw (as
741:. If a nominee brings up past missteps themself, and either apologizes or explains how such missteps will be avoided in the future, the candidacy will be more likely to succeed.
1481:
928:
nominating you. If you have been nominated, then again follow the instructions on that page. Once, by following the instructions, an RfA has been transcluded (i.e. posted) to
461:
RfA contributors want to see a record of involvement and evidence that you can apply
Knowledge (XXG) policies calmly, maturely and impartially. What are often looked for are:
228:
understanding of the
Knowledge (XXG) ethos and its most important norms and policies (their "spirit" and intent, and that you understand the norms administrators must follow).
1552:
935:
Administrator nominees should move slowly in this process. There is no deadline, and no need to rush. It is better to get it right than to move too quickly and make errors.
1111:
As a result of the higher level of consensus required, almost half the requests for bureaucrat status have been rejected, whereas more requests for adminship are approved.
1640:
1220:
1471:
904:
The RfA nomination process evolves. Initially nominations were an ad hoc assemblage of comments made on a mailing list. Later, the process became more formalized as the
1331:
647:: If a candidate is prone to repeating a single edit after it becomes obvious that there is a disagreement with it. To most RfA contributors, it does not matter who is
1365:
1173:
153:
283:
Maybe you are here because you've done several hundred edits and are now looking for new challenges, new ways to help the wiki. There are lots of ways in which you
1466:
1377:
1433:
1025:
207:
1423:
870:
When nominating someone, it is generally a good idea to ask them if they would like to be nominated before crafting an RfA nomination per the instructions at
1338:
1214:
1007:
on your own, but you are not required to do so. If you do so (though again you are not required to), you should edit the RfA after you have removed it from
921:
871:
789:
Is it ongoing or does it have "good" and "bad" days or periods? If the latter, can you usually recognize onset and take action before they can be a problem?
1405:
58:; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Knowledge (XXG)'s norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of
1418:
1185:
1274:
1635:
1321:
975:
prematurely removed, you may petition the person who removed it to reinstate it. You may find who removed the RfA by reviewing the page history of
1058:
achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 65% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.
1615:
1498:
1252:
1458:
1370:
1355:
1343:
1197:
925:
567:
389:
242:
157:
1135:
A full understanding of what consensus to promote is, and understanding of when to and when not to promote under extraordinary circumstances.
695:: If you've been blocked, voters will want to know why and what you've learned from this, especially if you've been blocked in recent months.
119:
before you make a request for adminship, otherwise you might be wasting your own and everyone else's time. Self-evaluation is very important.
885:
Once the RfA has been created, it is a good idea to work in concert with the nominee to carefully craft the nomination before listing it at
735:. If a nominee has demonstrated high standards of conduct for a few months, the RfA contributors may discount earlier undesirable behaviour.
924:. For someone else to nominate you, they should likewise follow the appropriate instructions on that page. There is also a list of editors
1529:
908:
page. As time has gone on, efforts have been made to improve the process. The process we have in place now is relatively straightforward.
55:
1191:
421:. Declining a nomination will not be held against you and can show a desirable thoughtfulness; you can always accept a later nomination.
255:
The nomination process is not intended as a forum for voting on a nominee's popularity or strength as an editor. It is a forum by which
1304:
1226:
1147:
Former administrators may seek reinstatement of their privileges through RfA unless prohibited from doing so by an arbitration remedy.
142:
126:
141:
refer to this guide for the purpose of deterring a candidate from accepting a nomination. This is only a guide to current practice on
1539:
1534:
1493:
1382:
833:
been involved in edit wars (other than against blatant vandalism), or been uncivil on those pages, it may adversely affect your RfA.
616:
611:
497:
427:
638:
341:
that until you really start to find there are things that you cannot do there, there is not much point in trying to become an admin
299:
51:
619:, persistently starting AfDs on articles on the kinds of subjects generally (let alone explicitly) recognized as worth an article.
343:. Indeed, only when you have had a good amount of experience in admin-related tasks are you likely to succeed in an application.
772:
Examples or information how it has impacted you in past editing (if it did) or on other projects and examples how you handled it
1630:
1620:
246:
200:
1239:
507:
181:
43:
818:
across controversial subjects by opposing all potential admins involved on the opposite sides of controversial edit wars.
1524:
1519:
592:: If a nominee has responded to unpleasant or irritating users by leaving insulting messages which violate the spirit of
311:
1593:
1267:
1625:
185:
177:
555:
set. This is important for administrators, who may need to be contacted by users who have been blocked from editing.
1296:
1203:
1179:
704:: Some have a low opinion of editors who create fancy signatures, especially ones with special characters and images.
173:
130:
966:
Currently, there is an open-ended debate regarding whether a nomination that is going poorly should be removed from
225:
appropriate approach and conduct as a community member (quality of interaction and ability to work with others); and
629:
can disturb many contributors to the RfA, due to fear that the nominee will wrongly delete articles without review.
511:
377:
779:
Depending on the condition you might consider things like these in your nomination or in a disclosure statement:
710:: Unless you have a good reason that you state on your page, a steady edit history in recent months is preferred.
1413:
531:
1450:
1156:
1050:
956:
1097:
The bar for determination of consensus for acceptance as a bureaucrat is higher than for an administrator. ("
453:, or ask a user who has nominated someone else. Avoid mistakes rather than making them and then fixing them.
137:
that you are committed to
Knowledge (XXG) and can be trusted to know and uphold its policies and guidelines.
1582:
1260:
783:
Matter-of-fact-ness, stating the issue and its impact in a sentence or two. Most people don't need an essay.
1514:
666:
386:
RfA contributors have differing standards for what they consider to be acceptable administrator candidates.
365:
1286:
1123:
History of productive administrator work, especially with regards to determining consensus (e.g. in XfDs).
1152:
1079:
1054:
1028:
appropriately to include your nomination. The date you should use on that page is the date you withdrew.
971:
662:
603:
521:
493:
317:
256:
195:' mainpage will quickly reveal that there is only one official requirement to becoming a Knowledge (XXG)
169:
134:
63:
59:
657:: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on
449:
If something is unclear, then ask the person who nominated you, put a message on the discussion page of
305:
1107:
Bureaucrat nominees are expected to be fully aware of current debates around RfA and of its guidelines.
724:: Administrators are expected to treat editors equally and acknowledge the opinions of all Wikipedians.
593:
323:
73:
769:
Brief information, what the condition is and the effect it may have on your work as an editor or admin
276:
Things that a potential administrator nominee should consider before accepting a nomination include:
1562:
1159:, is that bureaucrats may grant adminship only when doing so reflects the wishes of the community.
673:
658:
1243:
1557:
1547:
882:
template on their talk page. This provides some basic information on what the nominee should do.
439:, but rather if you make improving Knowledge (XXG) your goal then adminship shall come naturally.
1120:
A strong participation in requests for adminship, with sensible rational reasoning for opinions.
1104:
Bureaucrat nominees typically undergo significantly more scrutiny than an administrator nominee.
633:
196:
1090:. The RfB process is similar in nearly all respects to the RfA process with a few exceptions:
821:
It may be a good idea for you to highlight the controversy in answering the standard question
551:
There are also several other things that contributors will raise, such as whether you have an
1087:
720:
684:
877:
874:. If the person you want to nominate is willing to accept the nomination, you may place the
360:
203:
to apply. However, this does not mean that there are no additional standards to be aware of.
1083:
1075:
1062:
1008:
1004:
976:
967:
960:
944:
929:
905:
886:
700:
665:. Impartial evaluation of a candidate is the goal, rather than measuring their popularity.
626:
450:
192:
264:
the past, as well as new and inexperienced users you may be disagreeing with at the time.
985:
after your acceptance, and indicate your desire to withdraw. This might look like this:
728:
However, many RfAs have succeeded despite some of the above. The important factors are:
492:. Evidence that you are already engaging in administrator-like work and debates such as
716:: Multiple RfAs in a short timespan can be interpreted by some as being 'power-hungry'.
1283:
Advice, requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
1609:
679:
on your userpage, which is a more neutral way to communicate your RfA to other users.
943:
An RfA remains open for seven days, beginning from when the nomination is posted to
17:
1200:– also includes a list of individual users' criteria for admin candidate assessment
1155:, the user will be referred to RfA. The guiding principle for such decisions, per
864:
856:
468:
with plenty of well referenced material contributions to
Knowledge (XXG) articles.
480:. Evidence of you talking politely and helpfully to other editors on talk pages.
218:
Common areas where users may have expectations will usually be those that show:
689:
to avoid scrutiny, or to mislead the community about your past editing history.
388:
A full list of links to individual voters' RfA criteria pages can be found at
1078:. Bureaucrats are at present responsible for the following tasks: determining
762:
other problems, evidence it can be managed so as not to cause a problem, etc.
602:: If a nominee has ever refused to be involved in good faith efforts to reach
963:
unless you are intentionally withdrawing your nomination from consideration.
807:
nobody needs to know actual specifics of treatments, names of medications etc
826:
566:
Some editors have listed their individual rough criteria for support on the
1094:
Bureaucrat nominations are generally done only by request of the nominee.
520:. A track record of working within policy, showing an understanding of
352:
322:
if you've been reverting vandalism for a while, any admin can give you
970:. There is no standard by which such nominations are removed, nor any
920:
To nominate yourself, follow the instructions as they are outlined at
437:
If you make adminship your primary goal you are less likely to succeed
625:: Nominating articles for speedy deletion when they don't meet the
359:
251:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll
168:
RfA is the means by which the Knowledge (XXG) community develops
129:(RfA) process, the mechanism by which editors are considered for
775:
Steps you will take to minimize any impact if RFA is successful.
651:, it matters how a candidate handles themselves during a debate.
281:
There is a lot of admin stuff you can do without being an admin!
1256:
641:, or made seemingly frivolous complaints via official channels.
615:: Voting according to criteria not relevant to the purpose of
133:
status. To become an administrator, there needs to be a clear
100:
29:
1138:
A good record of providing clear reasoning for their actions.
990:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1223:– lists many essays and other materials of use to candidates
661:. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop
506:. A good way to demonstrate this is contributing to getting
398:
Some people who oppose RfAs do not explain their opposition.
339:
There are so many other admin tasks that you can already do
1210:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions
955:
Sometime after the seven days for the RfA have elapsed, a
374:
Nominees with lower edit counts are less likely to succeed
210:
will quickly show that members of the community have many
829:", a unique and durable link to a post. However, if you
125:
This is a guide to current practice at Knowledge (XXG)'s
1206:– advice on the questions you'll be asked as a candidate
984:
before your nomination acceptance, a closing </s: -->
1326:
1314:
1309:
88:
81:
1074:
Bureaucrat nominations (RfB) are also considered on
351:. Your past record will come under scrutiny and any
1507:
1449:
1398:
1295:
1174:
Knowledge (XXG):Miniguide to requests for adminship
623:
Incorrectly nominating articles for speedy deletion
1221:Category:Matters related to requests for adminship
1026:Knowledge (XXG):Unsuccessful adminship candidacies
574:What RfA contributors look for and hope not to see
637:: If a nominee has ever started an inappropriate
606:on talk pages, and instead engaged in edit wars.
272:Things to consider before accepting a nomination
1215:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Debriefs
1188:– read before and use as a reference list later
922:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Nominate
872:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Nominate
378:RFA standards have historically risen over time
669:is generally looked down upon. Consider using
457:What RfA contributors look for and hope to see
368:may reduce your chances for succeeding at RfA.
1268:
115:Really simple guide to requests for adminship
8:
1186:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' reading list
1176:– a compressed summary version of this guide
1115:What is often looked for by RfB contributors
1003:If you'd like, you may remove the RfA from
1275:
1261:
1253:
1182:– the admin policy, including requirements
1641:Matters related to requests for adminship
1198:Knowledge (XXG):Advice for RfA candidates
243:Knowledge (XXG):Advice for RfA candidates
222:breadth and duration of wiki-experience;
56:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
1217:– post-RfA thoughts from RfA candidates
1086:membership applications; and assigning
1227:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
291:, without being an admin; for example:
143:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
1192:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' guide
752:Illness and other personal conditions
560:Complete answers to the RfA questions
172:on whether an editor should be given
152:For an informal look, please see the
7:
428:Administrator status is not a trophy
300:Category:Knowledge (XXG) maintenance
1151:reinstatement would lack community
154:Miniguide to requests for adminship
1636:Knowledge (XXG) administrator help
1378:Advice for asking questions at RfA
1194:– the how-to collection for admins
1129:A good record as an administrator.
1041:and/or the talk page of your RFA.
411:Am I ready to be an administrator?
247:Knowledge (XXG):How to pass an RfA
25:
1616:Knowledge (XXG) information pages
853:introductory nomination statement
176:rights, such as the abilities to
312:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog
104:
33:
27:Knowledge (XXG) information page
805:Even if you disclose an issue,
1406:Requests for adminship by year
1240:User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA
1204:Knowledge (XXG):RfA cheatsheet
1180:Knowledge (XXG):Administrators
1045:If you disagree with consensus
156:and the more detailed page at
1:
1017:at the very top of the page,
837:General advice for nominators
184:, edit a protected page, and
893:
851:A nomination consists of an
627:criteria for speedy deletion
532:Knowledge (XXG):Edit summary
1351:Optional RfA candidate poll
1157:Knowledge (XXG):Bureaucrats
329:get involved in translation
237:General advice for nominees
1657:
1588:Current bureaucrat count:
840:
745:Approach to opposing votes
610:Controversial activity on
349:RfA can be a harsh process
240:
71:
1621:Knowledge (XXG) adminship
1573:
1356:Advice for RfA candidates
998:I withdraw my nomination.
568:Advice for RfA candidates
158:Advice for RfA candidates
1242:, a useful template for
994:I accept the nomination.
504:High quality of articles
1530:Inactive administrators
1132:A need for bureaucrats.
861:three initial questions
514:are also well-regarded.
390:RfA essays and criteria
199:: Your account must be
1631:Requests for adminship
1626:Knowledge (XXG) how-to
1305:Requests for adminship
1070:Bureaucrat nominations
655:"Advertising" your RfA
369:
193:requests for adminship
127:requests for adminship
1577:Current admin count:
1540:Desysoppings by month
1535:Former administrators
1494:Bureaucrat discussion
1099:In general around 85%
1039:on your own talk page
939:During the nomination
498:articles for deletion
363:
306:Category:WikiProjects
708:Long gaps in editing
419:Declining is allowed
353:questionable actions
52:encyclopedic article
18:Knowledge (XXG):GRFA
1499:Bureaucrat activity
1229:– when you're ready
1084:bot approvals group
926:willing to consider
518:Observing consensus
490:Helping with chores
466:Strong edit history
444:Follow instructions
1478:Unsuccessful RfBs
1430:Unsuccessful RfAs
1388:Arguments to avoid
900:Nomination process
370:
318:fighting vandalism
201:extended confirmed
1603:
1602:
1383:Advice for voters
1049:It is the job of
912:Before nomination
843:Nominator's guide
813:Other controversy
538:A clean block log
508:articles featured
472:Varied experience
191:A glance at the '
123:
122:
99:
98:
16:(Redirected from
1648:
1520:Adminship reform
1463:Successful RfBs
1410:Successful RfAs
1290:
1277:
1270:
1263:
1254:
1022:
1016:
881:
880:|YOUR USERNAME}}
721:Biting newcomers
678:
672:
634:Abuse of process
478:User interaction
316:get involved in
310:get involved in
304:get involved in
298:get involved in
268:administrators.
108:
107:
101:
91:
84:
44:information page
37:
36:
30:
21:
1656:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1599:
1569:
1548:User rights log
1503:
1445:
1394:
1371:Self-nomination
1339:RfA nominations
1291:
1284:
1281:
1236:
1170:
1165:
1145:
1117:
1072:
1047:
1034:
1018:
1012:
953:
941:
914:
902:
875:
859:), followed by
845:
839:
815:
754:
676:
670:
576:
484:Trustworthiness
459:
446:
274:
253:
239:
216:
166:
105:
95:
94:
87:
80:
76:
68:
67:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1654:
1652:
1644:
1643:
1638:
1633:
1628:
1623:
1618:
1608:
1607:
1601:
1600:
1598:
1597:
1586:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1504:
1502:
1501:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1469:
1461:
1455:
1453:
1447:
1446:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1421:
1416:
1408:
1402:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1380:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1363:
1353:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1312:
1301:
1299:
1297:Administrators
1293:
1292:
1282:
1280:
1279:
1272:
1265:
1257:
1250:
1248:
1247:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1224:
1218:
1212:
1207:
1201:
1195:
1189:
1183:
1177:
1169:
1168:For candidates
1166:
1164:
1161:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1095:
1071:
1068:
1046:
1043:
1033:
1030:
1020:{{subst:rfab}}
1014:{{subst:rfaf}}
1001:
1000:
952:
949:
940:
937:
913:
910:
901:
898:
838:
835:
814:
811:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
784:
777:
776:
773:
770:
753:
750:
749:
748:
742:
736:
726:
725:
717:
714:Over-eagerness
711:
705:
696:
690:
680:
652:
642:
630:
620:
607:
597:
587:
575:
572:
564:
563:
542:
541:
535:
528:Edit summaries
525:
515:
501:
487:
481:
475:
469:
458:
455:
445:
442:
441:
440:
433:
432:
423:
422:
415:
414:
403:
402:
394:
393:
382:
381:
358:
357:
345:
344:
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
327:
320:
314:
308:
302:
293:
292:
273:
270:
238:
235:
230:
229:
226:
223:
190:
182:protect a page
165:
162:
121:
120:
109:
97:
96:
93:
92:
85:
77:
72:
69:
49:
48:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1653:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1634:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1611:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1572:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1543:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1512:
1510:
1506:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1487:Chronological
1485:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1477:
1473:
1472:Chronological
1470:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1462:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1440:
1439:Chronological
1437:
1435:
1432:
1431:
1429:
1425:
1424:Chronological
1422:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1409:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1401:
1397:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1364:
1362:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1344:Request a nom
1342:
1341:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1300:
1298:
1294:
1288:
1278:
1273:
1271:
1266:
1264:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1245:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1160:
1158:
1154:
1148:
1142:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1114:
1112:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1059:
1056:
1053:to determine
1052:
1044:
1042:
1040:
1031:
1029:
1027:
1021:
1015:
1010:
1006:
999:
996:
995:
991:
988:
987:
986:
980:
978:
973:
969:
964:
962:
958:
950:
948:
946:
938:
936:
933:
931:
927:
923:
918:
911:
909:
907:
899:
897:
895:
890:
888:
883:
879:
878:subst:RfA-nom
873:
868:
866:
862:
858:
854:
849:
844:
836:
834:
832:
828:
824:
819:
812:
810:
808:
799:
795:
791:
788:
785:
782:
781:
780:
774:
771:
768:
767:
766:
763:
760:
751:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
730:
729:
723:
722:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
702:
697:
694:
691:
688:
686:
681:
675:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
650:
646:
643:
640:
636:
635:
631:
628:
624:
621:
618:
614:
613:
608:
605:
601:
600:Intransigence
598:
595:
591:
588:
585:
582:
581:
580:
573:
571:
569:
561:
558:
557:
556:
554:
553:email address
549:
547:
539:
536:
533:
529:
526:
523:
519:
516:
513:
512:good articles
509:
505:
502:
499:
495:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
467:
464:
463:
462:
456:
454:
452:
443:
438:
435:
434:
430:
429:
425:
424:
420:
417:
416:
412:
408:
407:Ask yourself,
405:
404:
399:
396:
395:
391:
387:
384:
383:
379:
375:
372:
371:
367:
362:
354:
350:
347:
346:
342:
338:
337:
331:
328:
325:
321:
319:
315:
313:
309:
307:
303:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
278:
277:
271:
269:
265:
261:
258:
252:
248:
244:
236:
234:
227:
224:
221:
220:
219:
215:
214:expectations.
213:
209:
202:
198:
197:administrator
194:
189:
187:
183:
179:
178:delete a page
175:
174:administrator
171:
163:
161:
159:
155:
150:
148:
144:
138:
136:
132:
131:administrator
128:
118:
117:
116:
110:
103:
102:
90:
86:
83:
79:
78:
75:
70:
65:
61:
57:
54:, nor one of
53:
50:It is not an
47:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
1589:
1578:
1563:Meta old log
1508:Useful pages
1482:Alphabetical
1467:Alphabetical
1434:Alphabetical
1419:Alphabetical
1399:RfA analysis
1360:
1249:
1149:
1146:
1143:Re-adminship
1110:
1098:
1073:
1060:
1048:
1038:
1035:
1019:
1013:
1002:
997:
993:
992:
989:
981:
965:
954:
942:
934:
919:
915:
903:
891:
884:
869:
860:
857:example here
852:
850:
846:
830:
822:
820:
816:
806:
804:
778:
764:
758:
755:
744:
738:
732:
727:
719:
713:
707:
698:
692:
682:
654:
648:
644:
632:
622:
609:
599:
589:
583:
577:
565:
559:
552:
550:
545:
543:
537:
527:
517:
503:
489:
483:
477:
471:
465:
460:
447:
436:
426:
418:
410:
406:
397:
385:
373:
348:
340:
332:help newbies
288:
284:
280:
275:
266:
262:
254:
231:
217:
211:
204:
186:block a user
167:
151:
146:
139:
124:
113:
112:
111:Please read
89:WP:RFA Guide
41:
1459:Noticeboard
1451:Bureaucrats
1234:For closers
1051:bureaucrats
510:, although
356:resolution.
208:failed RfAs
42:This is an
1610:Categories
1525:RfX Report
1515:RFA reform
1011:and place
957:bureaucrat
865:shown here
841:See also:
793:disengage?
739:Disclosure
701:signatures
699:Elaborate
685:sockpuppet
674:RFA-notice
667:Canvassing
590:Incivility
366:edit count
241:See also:
147:not policy
1366:Miniguide
1246:closures.
1244:WP:NOTNOW
1153:consensus
1126:Civility.
1088:bot flags
1080:consensus
1055:consensus
1032:Thankspam
972:consensus
663:consensus
645:Edit wars
604:consensus
584:Vandalism
522:consensus
494:RC Patrol
287:do admin
257:consensus
212:unwritten
170:consensus
135:consensus
74:Shortcuts
60:consensus
1594:list all
1583:list all
1558:Meta log
1414:By month
1332:Archives
1327:new post
1322:RfA talk
1163:See also
896:below).
687:accounts
594:civility
548:an RfA.
324:rollback
164:Overview
1553:Old log
951:Closure
894:Closure
797:notice)
683:Use of
82:WP:GRFA
64:vetting
1287:search
1076:WP:RFA
1063:WP:RFA
1009:WP:RFA
1005:WP:RFA
977:WP:RFA
968:WP:RFA
961:WP:RFA
945:WP:RFA
930:WP:RFA
906:WP:RFA
887:WP:RFA
693:Blocks
570:page.
546:before
451:WP:RFA
364:A low
326:rights
249:, and
1544:Logs
1361:Guide
1315:watch
801:past.
649:right
289:stuff
1310:edit
831:have
827:diff
733:Time
496:and
62:and
1579:850
983:-->
759:has
659:IRC
639:RfC
617:AfD
612:AfD
285:can
1612::
1590:15
1101:")
979:.
876:{{
677:}}
671:{{
245:,
188:.
180:,
160:.
149:.
145:,
1596:)
1592:(
1585:)
1581:(
1289:)
1285:(
1276:e
1269:t
1262:v
863:(
855:(
596:.
534:.
524:.
500:.
409:"
380:.
66:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.