User:Worm That Turned/Misconceptions about RfA
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
I thought I'd spend a bit of time addressing some of the statements about RfA. The statements are perennial, they keep turning up but are they correct?
"RfA is broken"[edit]
Here's the big one. RfA is broken, we hear it over and over again. It was cliché in 2006! Is it true though? Well, to be "broken" it must not work. Yet, RfA does work. It allows some editors to become administrators, based on the consensus of the community. The ratio of accepted candidates has remained fairly steady (between 1/3 and 1/2 of candidates are accepted each year.)[1] What's more, that's what I would expect for a process where people can self nominate. Regularly, those who are never going to succeed are going to be bold and nominate themselves. That's life.
At a fundamental level, RfA is not broken. That's not to say that it has no problems.
"Running the Gauntlet"[edit]
Candidates are in decline - Since RfA's peak in 2007, annual candidates have fallen by about 33% each year - from a high of 920, to current levels of about 60. Many potentially good candidates have declined to run because they feel they are "running a gauntlet". But what does this mean?
- People have high standards for administrators and spend time reviewing a candidate's history. Past behaviour can come back to haunt individuals.