Wikipedia talk:RfA is dead
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
I might expand this later, but I've pretty much said what I wanted to say. One two three... 11:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is a good start, but editcountitis is just one part of the equation, yes you need 4,000 edits for a credible run at RFA nowadays, and editors with as much as 6,000 edits risk opposes for lack of edits. But we have lots of editors with far more edits than this who are not running. The unpleasantness that sometimes surfaces is a factor, as are the various unpredictable other reasons that can prompt opposes - too much huggling being in my view one of the most invidious (I know one potential admin candidate who is concerned that even with more than 10,000 manual edits he would get opposes for having a high percentage of automated edits). We also have people confusing the implementation of policy with the creation of policy, I have supported editors at RFA who would like to change policy in ways that I completely disagree with, but AFAIC how an admin might vote over pending changes is irrelevant, what I want to know is whether they would use their tools in accordance with policy. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The evolution of RFA is a phenomenonal one. As you say, back in 2005 RFAs would fill the page and it would rarely be empty, and there would be several new admins each week. (December 2005, as it happens, had a record 68 promotions). It was still expected that candidates had experience, but the expectations were reasonable meaning you didn't have to spend your life on here. I don't know how or why standards have risen, or why there's barely any requests these days (other than the fact it's horrific to go through). It would be interesting for somebody to document it all. AD 03:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Aiken drum One After reading over not only the micro-managing such as this[1], but grossly inappropriate !votes such as this[2], it's of no surprise that RfA has been so empty. I wouldn't even bother with an a self-nomination, nor nomination by another editor. More than likely I would be facing about 60 counts of "not a snowball's chance in hell". Hell, I've seen RfAs where editors with twice my edit count, and triple my editing experience get shot down. Who would want to go through that after feeling completely confident they are ready? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 06:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)