Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics

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 ReviewThis monthLast monthFeb-Jul
New RfAs posted:7278459
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Early withdrawn RfAs:29 (40%)38 (49%)191 (42%)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:769786
Average number of opinions expressed per unsuccessful RfA:1627971
Success rates based on edit count of all nominees with at least...
All RfAs38%33%40%
>1000 edits49%44%51%
>2000 edits55%48%57%
>3000 edits61%53%62%
>4000 edits67%49%61%
>5000 edits67%50%61%
Success rates based on time on Wikipedia of all nominees with at least...
>2 months41%35%43%
>4 months47%38%46%
>6 months53%42%49%
Average edit count of successful noms:749967766222
Average edit count of unsuccessful noms:388832623052
1 - Unsuccessful nominations only includes those nominations that were not withdrawn early and were not successful.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

Nominations per week

Admins and articles

Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Statistics, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.