User:The Utahraptor/The do's and don't's of RfA voting

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, often referred to as RfA, is the process by which administrators are chosen on Wikipedia. This process is done through the utilization of a consensus vote, with the options of support, oppose, or neutral in regard to whether one thinks the RfA candidate is qualified to be an administrator. The current process, begun in 2004, was created with the phrase "Adminship is no big deal" in mind. This process was initially effective, but the success rate of RfAs began an ongoing decline in 2007, as there were more promotions in the period between 2004 and 2007 (1388) than the period between 2008 and 2011 (676).

On Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, numerous editors have said that RfA is "broken", and that something needs to be done about it. One of the most commonly stated opinions is that RfA has become the perfect arena for getting away with incivility and failure to assume good faith. While this opinion isn't agreed upon by all editors, most editors do agree that there are issues with incivility and failure to assume good faith on several RfAs. Editors also cite this as a reason why the number of successful candidates (and overall RfAs) has been decreasing since 2007. This is probably not the only reason why RfAs are becoming less numerous, but it is cited as one of the major reasons.

For the purpose of encouraging better behavior on RfA, this essay has been written to describe the do's and don't's of RfA voting.

Do's

Support

When supporting an RfA candidate, be sure to cite the reasons as to why you're supporting. Editors are encouraged to do a thorough examination of any RfA candidate's edits, whether they're an acquaintance or not. Once you perform a thorough examination of the candidate's edits, and if the candidate appears to be qualified for adminship, place your support vote, remembering to cite all of the major reasons as to why you're supporting. Including diffs and links (where appropriate) can help add validity and strength to your vote, so be sure to also include them whenever the opportunity arises.

Many supporters of RfA candidates also defend them when opposition arises. Be sure to carefully list the reasons as to why you disagree with the opposer if you're going to respond to them. Make sure the discussion stays civilized and calm; if the discussion begins to become heated, either attempt to calm the situation or, if it's too much, leave the discussion altogether. It's better to leave a heated discussion calmly than leave a heated discussion angrily.

Opposers of RfA candidates may also approach you directly and question your opinion of the candidate. Be sure that your argument has strength and validity behind it, and that you can emphasize that strength and validity in your response(s) to opposers. Again, make sure the discussion doesn't turn ugly; if it does, either try to calm it down or walk away. Nobody will blame you for walking away from a discussion in which editors are being uncivil.

Oppose

The process by which editors should form oppose votes is similar to the process by which editors should form support votes. A thorough examination of the candidate's edits should be made before any opinion (support, oppose, or neutral) is formed. Once you perform this examination, and if the candidate appears to be unqualified, place your oppose vote. Like supporters, opposers should cite all of the major reasons as to why they're opposing the RfA candidate. This must be done in a civilized and calm manner, with regard to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Opposers must be ready for defensive supporters to respond to their vote, especially if it's a particularly strong (or particularly weak) vote. Like support votes, oppose votes must have strength and validity behind them, and the opposer must be ready to emphasize the strength and validity behind their argument. Discussions in the oppose avenue tend to become more heated than those in the support avenue, and it is imperative that, when faced with these heated discussions, editors, whether they support or oppose the candidate, steer clear of these discussions.

Opposers may also wish to question the validity of any support vote, especially if that vote contradicts something in the opposer's vote. This questioning must also be done in a civilized and calm manner. Be sure to cite examples, where appropriate, when responding to a support vote that you don't agree with.

Neutral

Like support and oppose votes, neutral votes are formed after a thorough evaluation of an RfA candidate's edits is made. After making an evaluation of the candidates edits, and if you're not sure whether you want to support or oppose, place your vote in neutral, or wait for more support and/or oppose votes to come in. Many editors base their opinions as to whether the candidate would make a good administrator on the votes of other editors; these editors either vote neutral and wait a few days for more votes to come in, or they refrain from voting altogether until more support and/or oppose votes come in.

As always, be sure to cite why you voted neutral, and be prepared to defend your opinion. Neutral votes don't need the validity and strength of a support or oppose vote, but they still do need some validity and strength behind them. Voters, whether they supported or opposed the candidate, may approach you and question your vote, and as always, be sure to respond in a civil manner. If you end up changing your mind and supporting or opposing, include a rationale as to what made you change your mind.

Don't's

Support

If you support an RfA candidate, it is important that you include a rationale that explains why you're supporting the candidate. Votes that look like Support ~~~~ should be avoided, as they include no rationale and are generally unhelpful in an RfA. However, if enough time has passed and most, if not all, of the reasons as to why the candidate would make a good admin have been presented, Support ~~~~ votes may be acceptable, depending on the RfA.

When responding to the questioning of your rationale by opposers, do not respond in a way that appears to be uncivil; keep the discussion as civil as possible. If the discussion becomes heated, do not respond by posting personal attacks, either in direct response or on the other editor's talk page, as the only thing this will do is add more wood to the fire and make it burn longer.

It is also important that you don't attack opposers because your opinions differ. Not one person thinks exactly like another, and therefore there will be differences in opinions. If you disagree with an opposer, feel free to say so and include reasons as to why you disagree, but refrain from attacking them, as this will spark the unnecessary drama that has been seen in numerous RfAs recently.

Oppose

Opposition to RfA candidates is one of the biggest concerns of the RfA community. Numerous issues with opposers have been brought up, including failure to assume good faith and failure to follow Wikipedia's policies on civility and no personal attacks. While this doesn't apply to every oppose vote, it does apply to a wide variety of them, especially in a candidate who was a part of a controversial event, whether recent or not.

It is important to always assume good faith when assessing the qualifications of candidates, especially if the candidate was involved in a controversial issue, either recently or in the distant past. It is acceptable to oppose a candidate based on a specific controversial issue that has occurred, but it isn't acceptable to oppose a candidate based on a controversial issue that has long since cleared up and been taken care of. Generally, candidates who were involved in a distant past controversial issue have realized their mistake and taken steps to improve, which can easily be seen in their contributions. When assessing RfA candidates, voters must overlook long gone controversial issues that the candidate was involved in, and assess the candidate based on their recent contributions.

Many editors who have opposed RfA candidates in an apparently uncivil manner have said that they weren't being uncivil in their assessment. While it is true that they may think they weren't being uncivil, chances are, in a way, they were being uncivil. The definition of incivility isn't solid; that is, it's open to interpretation. What may seem perfectly civil to some may seem completely uncivil to others. When voting in an RfA, you must be careful not to word your rationale in a way that can be interpreted as uncivil.

In an increasing number of RfAs, personal attacks on the candidate, the candidates supporters, and the candidate's opposers are made. These personal attacks not only add stress to the RfA candidate, but other voters, as well. Personal attacks often lead to ANI or RfA talk discussions (usually the latter), and the drama arguments that they cause never end well. Like incivility, the definition of "personal attack" isn't solid; what may seem fine to some may seem like a personal attack to others. When opposing an RfA candidate, you shouldn't use words that are considered vulgar, as some editors take such words offensively no matter what context they're used in. It is important that you avoid the usage of adjectives that can be considered insulting, such as "lazy", "incompetent", "crazy", etc. Even if you find these terms to be accurate, since they can be interpreted as insulting, avoid them as much as possible.

Neutral

If, during an RfA, you plan on switching your vote from neutral to support or oppose, be sure to adhere to (or at least consider) the suggestions above.