Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters

This is an essay on the Requests for adminship. 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:RFAV

Reading time: approx. 13 mins. This is one of three important advice pages for RFA voters. The others are Should you ask a question at RfA? and Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions which expands, with examples, of good and inappropriate votes. It is strongly advised to read all three before participating at RfA.

This page in a nutshell: This advice is based on 100s of previous RfAs. Being a Wikipedia administrator is not the same as being a moderator on an Internet forum. The tasks are many and varied and require a high degree of competency and judgement. In particular, see: What adminship is not. Whether they pass or fail, candidates at RfA are entitled to a fair and supportive process.

The process of becoming an administrator is described on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. The tasks that admins actually do are described at Wikipedia:Administrators. Candidates for adminship must be nominated (either by another user or by themselves), answer some questions, and then be subjected to a 7-day community discussion as to whether they will be accepted as admins by the community. The most successful candidates will almost always have edited Wikipedia for at least several years and will have thousands of edits in various 'maintenance' areas of the project, and will have made many good contributions to articles, but it's not so much the quantity of their work, but the quality which is important.