D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship

From D&D Wiki
(Redirected from RfA)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
D&D Wiki Help Portal
HPL.png

Joining
About
FAQ
Logging In
Mission Statement

Community
Community Portal
DnD Discussion
Featured Articles
Glossary of Jargon
News
Social Media
Talk Pages
Whacking with a Wet Trout

Editing
Article Naming
Campaign Settings
Constructive Editing
D&D Guidelines
D&D Links
Help Page
Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates
Meta Pages
Sandbox
Sourcing and Linking Images
Standards and Formatting
Table
Table/Examples
When to Italicize and Capitalize

Using D&D wiki
Browsing

Policies
A Good DM
Attribution Policy
Behavioral Policy
Deletion Policy
Legal
Mature Content Policy
Page Protection
Precedent
Rating Policy
Spirit and Intent
Warning Policy

Administration
List of Administrators
Request for Moderation
Requests for Adminship
Talk to the Administration


Requests for Adminship (RfA) is the process by which the D&D Wiki community decides who becomes an administrator (admin). Admins have access to additional technical features which help with site maintenance in a few different ways. To become an admin a user either submits his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or is nominated by another user.

Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list and how-to guide, as well as the guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request.


Complete admin list (19):

Process

The community grants administrator status to trusted users who are familiar with D&D Wiki policies. Nominees must have been on D&D Wiki long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of D&D Wiki. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Adminship is primarily an extra responsibility, as there are rules and policies that apply only to administrators. Almost all administrator actions are reversible, and there is a separate process for dealing with conflicts with or abuse by administrators.

Nomination standards

There are no official prerequisites for adminship, other than a basic level of trust from other editors. However, some users set standards (on an individual basis) that may be useful to read. Candidates for adminship are advised to become familiar with the standards generally applied by RfA participants.

The nomination statement and responses to questions should indicate that the nominee is familiar with the tools and roles of administrators.

Decision process

Any editor in good standing may nominate any other editor1 or him/herself. Nominations remain posted for seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page during which interested users give their opinions, ask questions, or make comments. At the end of that period a bureaucrat reviews the discussion to see whether there is a general community consensus for the candidate and then grants or does not grant adminship. The numbers of people supporting, opposing, or expressing another opinion on a candidacy are a significant factor in determining consensus, as such few RfAs succeed with less than 75% support, but a request for adminship is not a ballot; only consensus (as determined by a bureaucrat) must be achieved: the reasons and evidence given during the RfA may sway others, and participants communication with the candidate may change ones position during the decision period.

In exceptional circumstances bureaucrats may extend the deadline or rerun a nomination (see naming convention below) if this will make the consensus more recent. If your nomination fails, please wait a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within a month, but many editors feel that at least two or even three months is better.

Bureaucrats may also use their discretion to close nominations early or leave them open for an extended period. If a promotion is unlikely and they see no further benefit to the nominee in leaving the application open or if consensus has yet to be reached a bureaucrat, and only a bureaucrat, may close a nomination as such.

How to nominate an editor for adminship

Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply on the nomination page to accept or decline the nomination. Better yet, ask them whether they will accept before creating the page. Nominees should read the guide to requests for adminship before accepting. Renominations, requests for adminship created to determine if an admin has been upholding D&D Wiki's policies and upholding his/her admin position, do not however need to be accepted by the user in question. This is to prevent abuse.


a: If this is the first nomination of the nominated user please remove. From that point count up (...2, ...3, ...4, etc).

To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow the instructions on this page.

Exceptions: The list of request for adminship (RfA) exceptions.

  • Green Dragon and Blue Dragon cannot be nominated for adminship. This is because they both have physical connections (e.g. back-end access, hosting relations, domain name relations, etc) with D&D Wiki. The physical connections grant inherent userrights.
  • Inactivity for 12 months or more can result in an automatic dismissal of a user's adminship duties, without the need for a request for adminship (RfA) process.
Expressing opinions
  • Who may participate: Any user in good standing is welcome to participate in discussions on candidates.
  • Who may comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections: Any D&D Wikian with an account is welcome to comment here, except for the candidate (who may provide short responses to comments by others). Certain comments may be discounted or removed if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors or sockpuppets, as well as meatpuppetry and other activity that may be the result of an illegitimate attempt to shift the balance of opinion.
  • To add a comment, click the "Discuss here" link for the relevant candidate. You may then indicate whether you Support or Oppose the nomination by signing your name under the relevant heading. Any Wikipedian, including very new editors and "anons", may participate in the discussion in the "comments" section. The candidate may respond to questions/concerns/comments.
  • "Neutral" comments are also permitted, but are not usually counted in determining percentages.
  • Explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input will carry more weight if it is accompanied by supporting evidence.

Note: The major consideration for whether a user should become an administrator should be evidence of how the user will use the administrator tools.

  • Who may not comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections: Editors who do not have an account and/or are not logged in ("anons"). These editors are welcome to participate in the Comments and Questions sections.
  • Always be respectful towards others in your comments.
  • Threaded discussions are held in the Comments section. Long discussions are held on the discussion page of the individual nomination. Anyone may comment or discuss, including anonymous editors.
  • Please remember to update the tallies in the headers when voting.

Current Proceedings

None.

Past Proceedings

Current Admins (Special:ListAdmins)
Past Admins
Failed Nominations


Retrieved from "https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship&oldid=1566768"