Wikipedia:Why self-nominated RfA candidates could be more competent

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:WHYSELFNOM

This page in a nutshell: Self-nominated candidates can be just as competent or even more competent than other candidates.

Some people hold self-nominations to a higher standard at RfA than candidates nominated by someone else. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with either a self-nomination or a candidate who is nominated by someone else, it is certainly possible that self-nominated candidates stand out better.

Administrators get questioned about their actions; they need to explain why they did something. Writing a nomination statement setting out why people should support them for adminship is an excellent test of the candidate's communication skills. If someone cannot provide a satisfactory explanation why people should trust them with administrator tools, then chances are, they will not have the communication skills required of an administrator.

Self-nomination is also an indicator that the candidate has high self-esteem. Wikipedia is founded on the principle of being bold when updating pages. Good self-esteem means the candidate is motivated to make this place better, and a self-nomination demonstrates this. Wikipedia needs administrators who will be confident in making decisions and in their ability to judge what the community wants.

Self-nominated candidates can be strong candidates, and in fact some of our finest administrators self-nominated:

(Feel free to add yourself to the list if you self-nominated as well)

See also[edit]