Wikipedia:Vetting process
{{historic}}
{{shortcut|WP:VETTING}}
To widen our pool of prospective good candidates, to raise the quality or our candidates, increase the chance for Requests for Adminship (RfAs) to pass, prevent the RfA process from being quite so toxic, and give some of our most prolific editors some honest feedback, experienced editors are invited to propose possible candidates for “vetting”. This is an informal process that is by no means a pre-requisite for a successful RfA.
{{divbox|amber|Note|Please do not discuss the prospects publicly. This is not an alternative to RfA; the whole point is the potentially disheartening stuff is said in private before a prospect agrees to go through RfA. Should the prospect choose to run, concerns raised in the private review will be made public by the nominator.}}
Steps
- An experienced editor – the proposer – who thinks another editor – the prospect – might be a good candidate, notifies the prospect of the intention of listing the prospect here.
- Prospect agrees on the prospect's talk page. This agreement does not mean any commitment that prospect will run as a candidate.
- Proposer posts the name here.
- Other editors reply to the proposer privately by e-mail, especially if they believe the prospect would not be a good candidate, or if they want to co-nominate the prospect.
- Proposer evaluates the replies, and if the feedback looks good, then:
- Proposer asks the prospect if he or she wants to run as a candidate for adminship
- Proposer officially nominates the prospect
- If the feedback identifies a problem, then the proposer can discuss it with the prospect, and help {{genderneutral|em}} become a better candidate. When the proposer thinks the prospect has improved appropriately, they can relist the prospect, mentioning that the earlier concern has been addressed.
=Notes=
- The proposer and prospect should address, in the nomination statement and initial questions, any and all concerns raised in private via vetting, ensuring transparency.
- Someone interested in self-proposal should be aware that the comments here are intended to discuss problems and may not be “nice”.
- Contributors should remain civil at all times, remembering that this is a way to help people improve and meet standards for RfA, not to harm the RfA process.
List of prospects
Please fill in the fields of the table as appropriate. Proposers should add a link to “
| class="wikitable" |
| Prospect
! Proposer ! Date proposed ! Status ! Most recent RfA ! Recent ER ! Reviewed by |
|---|
| {{user|Techman224}}
| 23:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | proposed | none | none | |
| {{user|Sephiroth storm}}
| 05:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | proposed | 02/2009: RfA | none | Dank |
| {{user|Adolphus79}}
| 18:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) | proposed | 12/2008: RfA | none |
| {{user|Ebyabe}}
| 21:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | proposed | none | none | |
| {{user|Basket of Puppies}}
| 05:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | proposed | 09/09 RfA | 04/2009: ER | |
| {{user|Atama}}
| 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | proposed | none | none |
| {{user|RayAYang}}
| 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) | proposed | none | 15-03-2009 ER |
Some advice on how to take feedback
Prospects: caveat emptor, which is Latin for “you don't have to buy what the reviewers are selling” (literally, buyer beware). Feel free to check your reviewer's past RFA votes and rationales [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/ here] ... if their comments were often out of synch with what was going on in those RFAs, then they may not be good at guessing how the votes will go, even if they have good advice otherwise. Take negative feedback especially to heart, because to succeed in an RfA you need to have about three support votes for every oppose vote. Also, when you receive confidential negative feedback, assume good faith and remember that most normal people don't enjoy giving negative feedback for its own sake and likely only do so to help you improve.