User:Captain-tucker/Adoption Center/5

This is another optional task in the adoption process. Its about the Requests for adminship process. Please be aware that to do this task well can take considerable time as you need to investigate a users editing history.

Requests for adminship (WP:RFA) is the system by which users can obtain administrator tools, which give them the power to block users, delete articles, and perform other managerial tasks around Wikipedia.

To be granted these powers, a user must undergo the RfA process, where they will be asked a series of optional questions, and then the community will attempt to reach a consensus on whether or not they should be granted “the tools” (a common nickname for the administrative powers).

Your task today is to vote in an RfA. Although the theory behind RfA is that anyone can judge anyone else’s worthiness, it’s probably a good idea judging someone you’ve worked with before, because you’ll have a benchmark from which you can decide his or her worthiness.

You can check the current RfA candidates on the RfA main page, or you can look through the list on the RfA tracker. When you have found a candidate who you have had some past experience (positive or negative) with in the past, click the link to their RfA.

The first thing you’ll see is a nomination, either by the candidate, or by another user. You may wish to read this to give you further ideas on what the candidate does around Wikipedia.

Underneath the nomination, you’ll see a series of optional questions. Chances are they have been answered, and it’s highly suggested you look through these answers, and base your vote (at least to an extent) on this. Successful administrators are generally those who want to do useful admin-only tasks for the project, so if they say “I’d like to block vandals who are reported to AIV”, it should be more highly looked upon then if they say “I’d like to write Featured Articles”, since the latter can be performed by anyone, but only admins can block vandals.

Other things to look for in a prospective candidate are their persona when dealing with them around Wikipedia, and the way they deal with conflicts and edit wars. Since being an admin involves a lot of conflict, someone who can’t stay cool during an argument won’t make a very successful admin.

Remember, the purpose of RfA (and all Wikipedia activities) is to reach Consensus; it’s not a vote. Your voting against a candidate will not destroy his chances of promotion, nor will your support guarantee he gets through. However, you can strengthen the argument on either side by providing examples (diffs) of where the candidate has acted inappropriately (if opposing) or has shown themselves to be a quality user (if supporting).

Just as a side note, be prepared to have to defend your views. I’m not trying to intimidate you, but some users get very passionate about RfA’s, especially if you oppose a candidate they supported (or nominated). That’s why the best and safest thing to do is provide solid diffs when presenting your argument, and to stay cool. Don’t be the one who takes it too far, just keep your calm, and you’ll be respected all the more for it. I’m not saying you shouldn’t defend your point of view, I’m just saying that you should be weary of how you defend it.

Anyway, that’s how to vote in an RfA. So if this interests you in any way go and make your opinion heard! When you’ve voted, copy the diff to your adoption page.