Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review

The last comprehensive examination of our Requests for Adminship (RfA) system occurred in 2015. Nearly 6 years later there has been lots of discussion about what has worked, and what has not, from that reform process. There has also been further discussion on a regular basis at Requests for adminship and elsewhere about other issues with RfA and of changes that may ameliorate those issues. In 2021, we are on pace for a record low year of RfAs. Our current pace puts us on track for having roughly 2/3 as many RfAs as 2018, the year which previously had the fewest RfAs. The time therefore seems right to once again examine RfA.

This process will largely follow the model of the 2015 examination, which also presents useful background information on the history of RfA reform. A more comprehensive listing of RFA reform efforts, including Signpost writing on the topic, is also available.

We followed a multi-step approach for this review of RfA. We discussed what issues, if any, there are with RfA today. We then proceeded to discuss possible ways of addressing any issues found. Finally, we implemented any changes which achieved community consensus.

• Phase 1 – Ran from August 29 to September 28 and found 8 issues (out of 21 proposed) which had some level of consensus as a problem.
• Brainstorming possible reforms based on the consensus from Phase 1 will begin 9 October with the expectation that it will run for 1 or 2 weeks before moving on to phase 2.
• Phase 2 – Phase 2, which will establish consensus for changes on the issues from Phase 1, will use the following timeline:
  • 24 October: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
  • 31 October: The 30 day discussion period will begin
  • 7 November: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
  • 30 November: 30 day discussion period ends and the panel of closers finding consensus or no consensus for various proposals.

Following Phase 1 the following issues had a clear consensus of support from editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
2. Level of scrutiny Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
3. Standards needed to pass keep rising It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
4. Too few candidates There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process,
   move review
   . Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of
   autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon
   for their help with implementation.

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

• WP:RFA reform