WikiQueer:Requests for adminship/Front matter

Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the WikiQueer community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.

This page also hosts Requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.

About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged, and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can impact the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages.

About RfA and its process
The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on WikiQueer long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.


 * There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.
 * There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than having an account and being trusted by other editors. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates; discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, one could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs.


 * If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect, so as to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption or coaching by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:WikiQueer administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at WikiQueer:List of administrator hopefuls. The RFA guide or miniguide might be helpful.


 * To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow the instructions or transclude the request properly.
 * To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination. The nomination may be considered "malformed" and removed if you do not follow the instructions or transclude the request properly.


 * Discussion and decision
 * Nominations remain posted for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.


 * Consensus at RFA is not a numerical measurement. As a general descriptive rule of thumb, most of those above ~80% approval pass; most of those below ~70% fail; this is subject to bureaucrat discretion (and if needed, discussion) on a case by case basis. In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are taken into account; the Neutral comments are not included in the calculation. The closing bureaucrat will still take the extent and substance of Neutral comments into account to determine consensus, along with all other relevant information.


 * If your nomination fails, please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within 3 months, but many editors prefer several months before reapplying.


 * Any user in good standing may close nominations early if a promotion is highly unlikely and they don't see any benefit to leaving the application open. Please do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that are not blatantly unpassable. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination, but they should make sure they leave a note with the candidate, and if necessary add the request to the unsuccessful requests.


 * In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination so as to make consensus clearer.


 * Any WikiQueerian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but only those with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".
 * Any WikiQueerian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, but only those with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind your position will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".


 * To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the relevant candidate. Any WikiQueerian, including those who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"), is welcome to participate in the comments section and ask questions. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism is useful for the candidate to hear so they can make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on-topic.


 * The 'requests for adminship' process draws a variety of WikiQueerians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of any WikiQueerian with an account to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, this approach to RfA !voting is perceived by some as "trolling". Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. Not fanning the fire will, at the very least, not make the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and are able to separate the wheat from the chaff.