Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→About RfA: simplify |
→About RfA: cut this CSD abuse and admin bully clause. CSD criteria belong at WP:CSD, not here. |
||
Line 55:
: Most nominations will remain active 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 [[Wikipedia:bureaucrats|bureaucrat]] will review the discussion to see whether there is a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for promotion.
: Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community [[Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC#C1: Expand discretionary range to 65%|determined]] that ''in general'', RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, it must be noted that a request for adminship is first and foremost, a '''consensus-building process'''.<ref>The community determined this in a [[Special:Diff/897750777#Is RfX a vote, or a consensus discussion? (RfC)|May 2019 RfC]].</ref> In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".<ref>Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.</ref>
: A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Snowball clause|WP:SNOW]] and/or [[Wikipedia:Not now|WP:NOTNOW]]. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per [[WP:NOTNOW
: If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
| |||