User:The Utahraptor/RfA observations

Requests for adminship is the process by which the Wikipedia community selects administrators and (in a few cases) assesses whether or not an existing administrator should keep the tools. This process was established in 2003, and was initially very efficient. From 2003 to 2007, 1,162 editors were promoted to administrator.

We've seen a decline in promotions since then, however, as from January 2008 to now, we've only seen 482 promotions.

This essay outlines my opinion on why we're seeing this decline, as well as why we're not getting anywhere with our discussions on how to stop this decline. This essay doesn't necessarily represent the majority opinion of RfA's participants.

Is the RfA process becoming more difficult?
Editors have been asking this question virtually since the decline began. Why are we seeing a decline in successful RfAs? One of the answers given has to do with RfA's voters. Some people say that the RfA process has gotten tougher over the years, and that a lower percentage of people are passing RfAs. To test this, we should look at the percentage of successful RfAs.

In 2005, the first year when precise records of unsuccessful RfAs were kept for the full year, there were 595 Requests for adminship; of these, 387 were successful. This means that approximately 65% of RfAs in 2005 were successful.

In 2006, there were 896 Requests for adminship; of these, 353 were successful. This means that approximately 39% of RfAs in 2006 were successful.

In 2007, there were 920 Requests for adminship; of these, 408 were successful. This means that approximately 44% of RfAs in 2007 were successful.

In 2008, the beginning of the apparent decline in successful RfAs, there were 593 Requests for adminship; of these, 201 were successful. This means that approximately 34% of RfAs in 2008 were successful.

In 2009, there were 358 Requests for adminship; of these, 121 were successful. This means that approximately 34% of RfAs in 2009 were successful.

In 2010, there were 230 Requests for adminship; of these, 75 were successful. This means that approximately 33% of RfAs in 2010 were successful.

In 2011, there were 139 Requests for adminship; of these, 52 were successful. This means that approximately 37% of RfAs in 2011 were successful.

In 2012, there were 96 Requests for adminship; of these, 28 were successful. This means that approximately 29% of RfAs in 2012 were successful.

The facts
According to the data above, there has been a substantial negative change in the percentage of successful RfAs this year. To find out why, this year's unsuccessful RfAs should be examined and compared to those of 2011.

In 2012, there were 68 unsuccessful RfAs. 28 of these were SNOW/NOTNOW closures, 5 were closed because no consensus was reached, 28 were withdrawn by either the candidate or a bureaucrat, and 7 ran the full week and were unsuccessful. This means that about 41% of unsuccessful RfAs were SNOW/NOTNOW closures, about 7% were closed because no consensus was reached, about 41% were withdrawn by either the candidate or a bureaucrat, and about 10% ran the full week and were unsuccessful.

In 2011, there were 88 unsuccessful RfAs. 47 of these were SNOW/NOTNOW closures, 7 were closed because no consensus was reached, 28 were withdrawn by the candidate, and 5 ran the full week and were unsuccessful. This means that 53% of unsuccessful RfAs were SNOW/NOTNOW closures, about 8% were closed because no consensus was reached, about 32% were withdrawn by the candidate, and about 6% ran the full week and were unsuccessful.

From this, it can be gathered that the percentage of SNOW/NOTNOW closures has significantly dropped from 2011 to 2012. It can also be gathered that the percentage of RfAs closed due to lack of consensus has not seen a significant change in percentage. However, both the percentage of withdrawn RfAs and unsuccessful RfAs have gone up since 2011. Why is this?

Following are the support/oppose/neutral percentages for each of the seven RfAs in 2012 that ran the full week and were unsuccessful:

Three of these RfAs failed because the candidate lacked significant content contributions, and four of these RfAs failed because the candidate lacked either good judgment, maturity, or experience in the fields they wished to work in.