A request for adminship (RfA) is the process by which users of the RuneScape Wiki decide whether or not a candidate will be granted additional tools that aid in maintenance of the wiki. A user may either submit his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - RuneScape:Requests for adminship
|
| rdfs:comment
| - A request for adminship (RfA) is the process by which users of the RuneScape Wiki decide whether or not a candidate will be granted additional tools that aid in maintenance of the wiki. A user may either submit his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user.
- There are two types of administrative abilities that may be granted through the RfA process: sysops (system operators), and bureaucrats. Sysop tools include the ability to block users from editing, delete or protect pages, and the ability to further prevent vandalism. Users with the bureaucrat right have the ability to bestow other user rights upon other users. For more information on administrators and their tools, please see the administrators page. There are no explicit requirements for nomination, but a few guidelines that may improve the chances of a successful request are as follows:
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| dbkwik:oldschoolru...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dbkwik:rune-scape/...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dbkwik:runescape/p...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| abstract
| - A request for adminship (RfA) is the process by which users of the RuneScape Wiki decide whether or not a candidate will be granted additional tools that aid in maintenance of the wiki. A user may either submit his or her own request for adminship (a self-nomination) or be nominated by another user.
- There are two types of administrative abilities that may be granted through the RfA process: sysops (system operators), and bureaucrats. Sysop tools include the ability to block users from editing, delete or protect pages, and the ability to further prevent vandalism. Users with the bureaucrat right have the ability to bestow other user rights upon other users. For more information on administrators and their tools, please see the administrators page. The community generally grants administrative rights to trusted users, so nominees have a higher chance of passing a request after having edited on the wiki for a significant amount of time. Nomination standards Any registered user (no I.P. addresses) may nominate another registered user (again - no I.P. addresses) for administrative rights, or a user may be self-nominated. Potential candidates may inform other users of their desire to undergo a request if they wish to avoid self-nomination. Adminship is usually only granted if the user demonstrates a need for the tools. Candidates for bureaucratship must already have sysops userrights. Bureaucratship is usually only granted if there is a clear lack of activity among other bureaucrats. Decision process The strength of the arguments supporting, opposing, or expressing a certain opinion of the candidate is the main factor used in determining the success of the request (see our consensus policy). Requests must last for at least one week at which point they may be analyzed for a final decision, which may determine whether or not there is consensus to grant the candidate access to the tools he or she requested. Additionally, if the outcome of the request is not clear, the nomination may be extended for a further week in order to determine a proper consensus. There are no explicit requirements for nomination, but a few guidelines that may improve the chances of a successful request are as follows:
* Candidates should be well-known, trusted, and helpful contributors to the wiki.
* Candidates should have been an active contributor to the wiki for a significant amount of time.
* Candidates should have a fair number of quality contributions.
* Candidates should present a clear need or use for the tools (i.e. significant amounts of counter-vandalism, etc.).
* If an RfA fails, a sufficient amount of time should pass before the candidate is nominated again. Expressing opinions Any user with an account is welcome to comment on requests. Comments should assess not only the use or need a candidate has demonstrated for the tools with which they would be provided, but they should also reflect upon his or her leadership ability and and skill at diplomacy - necessary qualities for an administrator. Remember to keep the wiki's best interest in mind when assessing a possible candidate. Nominations for adminship are not secret ballots. Comments are often responded to, and discussion commonly takes place within the candidate's nomination section. Try to avoid heated arguments and remain calm. Support or opposition should also not be based on friendships or rivalries. If a candidate has had a disagreement with you or a friend of yours in the past, do not simply oppose the candidate's nomination for that reason. The following is a list of common discussion markup choices which should be placed at the beginning of all posts within a nomination section.
* Support - followed by a reason for supporting the nominee.
* Oppose - followed by a reason for opposing the nominee.
* Neutral - followed by a reason for neither support nor opposing nominee.
* Comment/Observation/Note - followed by a statement presenting facts or clarifying a disputed fact.
* Not yet/Wait a little - followed by a reason for currently opposing while suggesting future support.
* Notice of intent - a bureaucrat's notification of an intent to either a close discussion or extend it for a specified period of time.
* {Decision} - a decision made by a bureaucrat presented in the form of {Example Candidate} has been made a sysop/bureaucrat or The discussion period of {Example Candidate}'s nomination is now over, {Example Candidate} remains a normal user/sysop.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)