Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Reading time: about 10 minutes

The administrator role on Wikipedia is a special user permission given only to senior-level editors who have demonstrated consistent proficiency and mastery with the necessary high level of knowledge, judgment, experience, temperament, and behaviour. Adminship requires a high level of trust and respect by the community. It is not granted to new or inexperienced editors.

Admin elections vs. RfA

[edit]

The process of becoming an administrator via request for adminship is explained at Wikipedia:RfA. The process for becoming an administrator via admin elections is explained at WP:AELECT. Any candidate can decide to use either process. The elections process is generally seen as less stressful, but pass rates are lower, especially if an election candidate self-nominates.

Successful candidates, under either process, almost always have at least one year of consistent editing experience, with thousands of edits showing their expertise in maintenance, policies, and content creation. The elections process assesses not only a candidate's editing skills, but also examines their maturity, fairness, interactions with others, civility and temperament, and overall judgment. Strong preparation, understanding of Wikipedia processes, and knowledge of and familiarity with Wikipedia's WP:policies and guidelines are absolutely essential for a candidate to be successful.

When you have read this guide and gone through the other advice pages, you may wish to start a request at the optional candidate poll before making up your mind, or you can contact an experienced editor for advice.

Preparing for adminship

[edit]
No big deal

The tasks administrators can perform are described at Wikipedia:Administrators, with more information at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:What adminship is not. More essays and advice pages are listed at the end of this page.

If you would like to be an admin someday, you should begin preparations well before becoming a candidate. Avoid making it appear as if your end goal here is to become an admin – first and foremost we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to administer it or control the behavior of its participants. You should thoroughly read the instructions and advice listed here and on the Admin elections pages. Review recent successful and unsuccessful RfAs and admin elections, and be sure you generally meet the criteria required by regular participants (see the list of essays at the end of this page). Candidacy by editors who are not likely to pass may be considered by the community to be immature or not respectful of participant time, something that is likely to affect your chances of passing even down the road when you do more closely meet the criteria.

Bear in mind that long absences from editing may not convince the community you are here to stay for a while. Those who succeed usually have 12 consecutive months of recent activity, including participation in admin-related maintenance areas.

When you have done all that, and read this page and followed the links, if you are reasonably sure you stand a good chance now, consider listing yourself at WP:Requests for adminship/Optional candidate poll for a final check if you have not already done so. Check out some of the previous polls in the archives for the kind of comments and advice you can expect. Be aware: you're expected to first read up on advice such as this page before starting a poll.

Preparing for the election

[edit]

Timing

[edit]

Candidacies for admin elections can only be submitted when a call for candidates is issued for a given election. If the timing doesn't work well for you, consider waiting for the next election.

If this is your second (or subsequent) candidacy, whether via RfA or election, you should wait at least 6–12 months while demonstrably addressing concerns brought up in the prior attempts. Having someone who opposed or expressed grave concerns during your previous candidacy nominate you is an excellent way to demonstrate this. Historically, many candidates have succeeded on their second RfA, but few succeed after a second failure; this is likely to apply to elections, too. Don't make the timing of your second candidacy a reason for voters to oppose. When in doubt, wait for the next election; an experienced nominator can help with assessing this.

Finding nominators

[edit]

Every candidacy needs a strong, convincing nomination statement. Being nominated by another experienced editor demonstrates that at least one other Wikipedian has confidence you'll be a good administrator. Strong nominations come from experienced users who do significant research to be sure the candidate has a strong case to receive adminstrative privileges. Many successful candidates are those who have been nominated by an admin; a co-nomination is also helpful.

There are usually editors looking for candidates to nominate; having multiple experienced editors offer a nomination is a good sign you're ready. Potential nominators will often want to contact you by email in order to plan and collaborate, so make sure that is enabled in your preferences for your account. You can also request a nominator by approaching an experienced editor you've worked with closely or someone from the list of editors willing to be asked to nominate a user.

Self-nomination

[edit]
Shortcut
Outcomes

Self-nominations only succeed if they are performed by long-term, very experienced editors. Even then, successful self-nominations are uncommon. In the July 2025 election, all but one of those with nominators succeeded. Of the nine who self-nominated, only two succeeded, and one came close to failing. In the October 2024 election, all candidates who had a nominator succeeded, and 80% of those who self-nominated failed.

If you're considering nominating yourself rather than asking for or accepting a nomination from an experienced nominator, you'll need to do your own evaluation of your candidacy:

  • Experience level: Few candidates will be successful without at least 10,000 edits and a year of experience. Most experienced nominators will recommend users meet these qualifications before running.
  • Content creation: Historically, many RfA participants have opposed a candidate who doesn't have some content creation in their contributions; this is likely a factor in elections, too. It's not uncommon for experienced nominators to recommend at least one featured article or two good articles which the candidate either created from scratch or contributed significant work to.
  • Behavioral issues: Historically, most RfA participants have been leery of a candidate who has been blocked or made subject to editing or interaction restrictions within the past six months, and this is likely a factor in elections, too. Most experienced nominators will recommend waiting at least that long.

If you do not satisfy these three criteria, nominating yourself will absolutely be seen as exhibiting questionable judgement. And even if you do satisfy them, given the vast difference in outcomes between those who find a nominator and those who self-nominate, the very fact you're self-nominating may be seen as evidence of a lack of judgement.

If you still feel confident you can succeed with a self-nomination, ask an experienced friend for advice on your draft. Nominations can be seen as too short, too long, too bold, lacking in personal insight, or not serious enough, and an extra set of eyes can help avoid that.

Questions

[edit]

The three standard questions should be answered before you transclude your nomination. If you are nominating yourself, your answers can be an opportunity to expand (rather than duplicate) some of the things you have said in your nomination statement. Do not make a joke in these statements; jokes do not go over well with participants.

During the discussion phase

[edit]

The discussion phase is part job interview, part performance review, part open book exam. Unless there are obvious reasons why the candidacy should fail, most participants will ask questions and discuss the candidate's strengths and weaknesses. More experienced participants will often hold off their comments until later in the process.

Advice for answering questions

[edit]

Participants at your election understand you had limited ability to choose the timing, so they'll likely be patient if you can't get to questions quickly. However, if there are questions piling up and you're actively editing elsewhere, that will not go down well. Plan to make the election your on-wiki priority during the discussion phase.

  1. Answering every question is not a requirement; they are labelled as optional for a reason. However, not answering has occasionally caused opposition in RfAs, and it's likely this will apply in elections, too.
  2. If you are asked a question you feel is inappropriate, don't rush to answer it, but instead privately seek advice from your nominator(s). If the question appears inappropriate to others, a monitor will likely remove it.
  3. Keep your answers concise, don't use pretentious language, and don't use humor. Overlong and pretentious-sounding answers do not go over well, and neither do jokes, sarcasm or breeziness.
  4. If a questioner uses diffs that have been taken out of context, whether it seems deliberate or accidental, assume good faith and address it calmly; ask for advice from your nominator.
  5. If a criticism made in the discussion section seems to be getting traction, contact your nominator for advice. An experienced nominator can help by addressing these, either by asking you in the questions section whether you'd like to address it or by addressing it themselves in the discussion section. Addressing it yourself in the discussion section carries the risk of looking like you are bludgeoning or badgering.

Closure

[edit]

Candidacies with a final tally of 70% support or more will close as successful after voting ends.

After the election

[edit]

If you passed

[edit]
  • Relax – it's over.
  • Enjoy the congratulations.
  • Enjoy the pints of beer, don't get too drunk, and wear the T-shirt with pride.
  • Learn from any feedback you got.
  • Check out the Administrator's guide, learn to use the tools slowly, and watch out for some unexpected new links in strange places.
  • Be a role model and lead by example.
  • Never hesitate to ask another admin for an opinion or advice.

If your candidacy does not succeed or if you withdrew

[edit]
  • Relax – it's over.
  • Don't be disheartened.
  • Learn from the feedback you got from the discussion.
  • Keep editing, don't retire from Wikipedia, and do try again another time.

Further reading

[edit]
Years shown are those of primary development and updates.

Useful pages

[edit]

Adminship essays and criteria

[edit]

Essays about adminship

Individual editors' criteria for nominating candidates

Advice for newer and younger editors considering adminship

Individual editors' criteria for supporting candidates

Wikiversity has learning resources about How to be a Wikimedia sysop