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.
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, especially Advice for RfA candidates that also includes a list of essential further reading. A sensible candidate will start commenting on the RfAs that come up, to help them see what they should expect.
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 to nominate a user
The following editors are willing to be asked for a nomination, and will review your edits. If they do not feel that you are ready, they will not nominate you, and they will explain why.
- I'm glad to see this brainchild of mine has been so successful and there are some great options below. You are still welcome to come to me, and I will give you a thorough review, explaining areas which you can improve on. If I can't see any, I'll nominate you! WormTT · (talk)
- Kudpung (talk), after you have thoroughly read WP:Advice for RfA candidates and checked that you generally meet my criteria. If you can get through that lot and still believe you will pass RfA, chances are 99,9% that you will. Then ask me to nominate.
- Kevin12xd (contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- ceranthor - noms
- By all means ask, but there's no guarantee I'll say yes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
- Of course. Please see my list of past nominations. Like HJ don't be offended if my response however is a "not yet".
- I'm willing to make a nomination on candidates I strongly think will be successful. Feel free to contact me.--v/r - TP
- Sure! -- œ™
- CT Cooper · talk
- Sure, although like HJ and Pedro, I cannot guarantee that I will nominate you if I don't think you are ready. List of my past nominations. Regards SoWhy
- Happy to review anyone seeking a RfA nom. Best, Mifter (talk)
- All of my nominations in the past year and a half have been successful, so willing to write up a persuasive statement if I see a fit prospective candidate. Juliancolton (talk)
- Not an admin myself, but you must pass my guidelines. I've had one successful nomination and no others. ⇒TAP
- I'm more than happy to do nominations. New Page Patrol candidates are the best fit for me, but I'll gladly nominate anyone who appears qualified. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)
- Ironholds (talk)
- I can take a look and see if you're ready. - Mailer Diablo
- I'm best with vandal patrollers & SPI types - that's pretty much all I use the tools for - but I'm happy to nom (nom nom) anyone I think is ready. I'm also willing to do admin coaching. Keilana|Parlez ici
- I thought I was on this list. — ΛΧΣ21 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just shoot me an email. Malinaccier (talk)
- Happy to review here and for other Wikimedia sites. No guarantee that I will agree to nominate, though. --Rschen7754 11:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, but be careful what you wish for! Bearian (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to review your edits. I am best at reviewing candidates who do new page patrol, AfD work, or template editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll be the best for you if you do work in AfC or work in Anti-Vandalism. buffbills7701 21:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll help experienced, patient contributors in any way I can. KrakatoaKatie 04:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Am an ex-arb and content-builder. I believe in content-builders becoming admins where possible. I am happy to nominate someone if I feel there is a fair chance of success and will suggest ways of improving chances. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you feel you're ready I'll happily write it up.--Church Talk 21:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, I have no problem nominating admin hopefuls for RFA. Racer-Ωmegα 23:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am very happy in willing to nominate somebody for Adminship. I like to nominate people with AfD & AfC work, and is working in anti-vandalism. You can post on my talk page or email me privately. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've been an admin for 11½ years now (although I took a wikibreak, apart from a few sporadic edits, for a few years before returning this year). I'm willing to consider nominating anybody who asks me (just leave a note on my talk page). I personally believe there are way too few admins around these days — when I came back, I expected to find at least ten thousand and was shocked to find merely a few hundred (active) ones. This is not a promise to nominate you — just a promise to consider doing so; provided you have made a reasonable number of contributions and haven't been in any (recent) serious trouble, I'll be happy to. David Cannon (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I will nominate, however don't expect my nominations to cause the crowd to immediately !vote support. Still, if you can't check the X GA/FAs box of any other nominator; or are having trouble getting a nomination because you don't have X percent in the Wikipedia mainspace or X uses of Wikipedia jargon, I will assess you based on non-numerical criteria. I am best at assessing delete WikiElves; however I will assess anyone with clue and sense. Esquivalience t 21:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have made several successful nominations and hope to make more. I don't get involved in SPI, the queue parts of DYK or file deletion so if any of them is your big thing you'd be better off with another nominator. Otherwise happy to be contacted by people who have read my nomination criteria in User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria and consider they meet it. ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)