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 successful, 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.

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Early withdrawn RfAs: 29 (40%) 38 (49%) 191 (42%)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...
All RfAs 38% 33% 40%
>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1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful.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.

Success rate over time[edit]

Nominations per week[edit]

Admins and articles[edit]