Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no official standard on RFA, since everybody is free to express an opinion on the request for adminship as they see fit. Analysis shows that in order to be succesful, a candidate must have (1) experience, and (2) community trust. Experience is indicated by having been around for a few months and having participated in a number of (though by no means all) different areas. Community trust is generally given to people who have been seen to make sensible edits, explain themselves when asked, and be able to keep their head in a dispute.

The following table was compiled by User:Durin and shows de facto standards for RFA, as of August 2006.

All RfAs	38%	33%	40%
August 2006 RfA in Review	This month	Last month	Feb-Jul
New RfAs posted:	72	78	459
Successful RfAs:	27 (38%)	26 (33%)	183 (40%)
Early withdrawn RfAs:	29 (40%)	38 (49%)	191 (42%)
Self nominations:	38 (53%)	39 (50%)	216 (47%)
Noms with <1000 edits:	17 (24%)	19 (24%)	99 (22%)
Average number of opinions expressed per successful RfA:	76	97	86
Average number of opinions expressed per unsuccessful RfA:¹	62	79	71
Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...
>1000 edits	49%	44%	51%
>2000 edits	55%	48%	57%
>3000 edits	61%	53%	62%
>4000 edits	67%	49%	61%
>5000 edits	67%	50%	61%
Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...
>2 months	41%	35%	43%
>4 months	47%	38%	46%
>6 months	53%	42%	49%
Average edit count of successful noms:	7499	6776	6222
Average edit count of unsuccessful noms:	3888	3262	3052

1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful. This is the smallest subset of RfAs, typically comprising less than 20% of all RfAs.