Wikipedia:Why self-nominated RfA candidates could be more competent
|This page is an essay, containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.||
|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 him or her for adminship is an excellent test of the candidate's communication skills. If someone cannot provide a satisfactory explanation why people should trust him with administrator tools, then chances are, he or she 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:
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Taxman
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wizardman
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deskana
- Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pathoschild
(Feel free to add yourself to the list if you self-nominated as well)