Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination

The request for adminship process on Wikipedia sounds simple enough; a generally good editor can step up to the plate to ask for a few more buttons to help out a little bit more. Other editors appraise the candidate and if they feel the candidate is trustworthy enough to not abuse these extra buttons they can support the nomination. If they have any worries, they can oppose the nomination, and leave a note explaining their concerns.

Considering becoming an admin?

The reality though is that this can be quite a brutal process. It is very difficult not to take opposes to heart, as they are effectively saying the candidate is untrustworthy and detailing why. Every edit the candidate has made is up for review, and even when taken out of context it can blow the opposition out of proportion. Some editors will analyse how long you've been editing, others how often or how many edits you've made overall. Part of this is to see your reaction: if you react badly, you will scupper your adminship attempt.

Because there is a detrimental effect on the editors who try for adminship and fail, we have two ways of closing RfAs early. Firstly, WP:NOTNOW, which is designed to stop editors with very little experience from running. Secondly, WP:SNOW, or "Doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell". They are both designed to limit the unpleasantness that the candidate is exposed to.

Can you minimise the pain?

Currently the best way to reduce the misery is to plan ahead. A dedicated candidate could read the many essays out there, like these. Even candidates who favour efficiency should read this essay. A sensible candidate will start commenting on the RfAs that come up, to help them see what they should expect.

Help is out there, just ask!

Some people can mitigate the issues by having a nominator, especially a nominator who is experienced in the process. They can look at the user's contributions and tell them very quickly if they are likely to fail. Unfortunately, many of the people who nominate editors for adminship focus in their areas of interest and only approach members that they are confident will pass. For this reason, we allow self-nominations.

However, if you are considering running for adminship and you haven't got a nominator, why not send an email to a person on the list below? They will happily look through your contributions and should be able to work out if you are likely to pass a Request for Adminship. Consider it a much more personal editor review. If they think you would make a good administrator, they will use their new found knowledge to write a nomination for you. If they can see that you won't, or if they have reservations, they will explain it to you in a much less harsh environment than RfA.

If you are looking to use this option, please remember that there will be a lot of information to look through, it might take them a little while, so please do be patient (a great administrator trait!)

Editors willing to be asked for an RfA nomination

The following editors are willing to be asked for a nomination, and will review your edits. They may or may not make a nomination, but they will explain why.

1. Worm^TT · (talk)
2. Kudpung
3. ceranthor
4. By all means ask, but there's no guarantee I'll say yes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
5. Of course. Please see my list of past nominations. Like HJ don't be offended if my response however is a "not yet". Pedro :  Chat 
6. Yes. Reaper Eternal (talk)
7. I may not be very active on Wikipedia at the moment, but I do still keep an eye on what is going on and am keen to help others who can do the work instead of me! Take a look at User:Peter/RfA reviews for more details. Peter 22:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)