User:Robertsky/sandbox/drafts/The path to becoming an Admin

The following is an adaptation from Schwede66's presentation at WikiCon New Zealand.

Administrators occupy a curious place in the English Wikipedia community. They are among the project's most visible volunteers, yet much of their work takes place behind the scenes. They close discussions, enforce community decisions, manage technical tools, handle disruptive editing, and help maintain the governance structures that keep the encyclopedia functioning.

As English Wikipedia approaches its twenty-fifth year, a perennial concern remain: the administrator corps continues to shrink.

A recent presentation by administrator Axel Downard-Wilke (User:Schwede66) examined the state of adminship, the routes available for becoming an administrator, and what prospective candidates can do to improve their chances of success. The picture that emerges is both a warning and a call to action.

What administrators actually do

The common perception of administrators often focuses on blocks and page protections, but the role is considerably broader.

Administrators are trusted volunteers who have access to a collection of technical tools unavailable to ordinary editors. These include the ability to block and unblock users and IP addresses, protect and unprotect pages, delete and restore pages, grant certain user rights, suppress public visibility of deleted content, and edit fully protected pages.

The role, however, is not merely technical. Administrators are expected to exercise judgment, maintain high standards of conduct, and use their tools impartially. The longstanding principle remains that administrative tools must never be used to gain an advantage in a content dispute.

As Downard-Wilke noted, no two administrators perform exactly the same work. Some focus heavily on content-related processes, while others work primarily in governance, dispute resolution, maintenance, or technical areas.

The shrinking admin corps

The English Wikipedia once saw administrators appointed directly by Jimmy Wales, followed by an era when adminship requests were conducted by email. The modern Request for Adminship (RfA) process emerged in the early 2000s and has remained the primary path to obtaining the tools.

Yet the number of administrators has been declining for years.

Data presented in the talk shows that since 2014, English Wikipedia has typically gained only around 17 new administrators annually while losing approximately 73. Even allowing for fluctuations from year to year, the long-term trend is unmistakable: more administrators leave than arrive.

Part of this decline reflects intentional policy decisions. Since 2011, inactive administrators have routinely been desysopped, and inactivity requirements were tightened further in 2023. Nevertheless, the overall trajectory remains downward.

As of 1 May 2026, the English Wikipedia had 811 administrators, of whom a substantial portion were either inactive or only semi-active.

Extrapolating current trends produces a sobering forecast. If losses continue to outpace gains, the project could face a severe shortage of active administrators within the next two decades.

The implication is straightforward: Wikipedia needs more administrators.

Two paths to the tools

Today, prospective administrators have two routes available.

The traditional route is Request for Adminship (RfA), the community discussion process that has served as Wikipedia's principal selection mechanism since 2004.

The newer alternative is Administrator Elections (AELECT), introduced in late 2024. Under this system, candidates stand in periodic elections rather than undergoing the standard RfA process.

Although both routes ultimately lead to the same outcome, community perceptions differ. Downard-Wilke argued that RfA, while often regarded as more demanding, is also more predictable.

The comparison offered during the presentation described RfA as "a job interview for 168 hours in front of a panel of 250". Candidates face intensive scrutiny, but strong preparation can make the outcome relatively foreseeable.

AELECT, by contrast, may feel less daunting but can also be less predictable. Electoral dynamics introduce an element of randomness that candidates cannot entirely control.

For editors who have carefully built the expected track record and community trust, the presentation suggested that RfA remains the preferable option.

The importance of nominators

One of the strongest messages from the presentation concerned the value of nominators.

Candidates may either nominate themselves or be nominated by experienced administrators. While self-nomination remains possible, the available data suggest that having a nominator significantly improves the likelihood of success.

An analysis of the first 56 AELECT candidates found that candidates with nominators were elected far more frequently than those who stood alone.

The reasons are not difficult to understand.

A good nominator serves as both mentor and gatekeeper. They can assess whether a candidate is genuinely ready, identify weaknesses that need attention, provide advice on preparation, and offer support during the process itself.

Sometimes that means encouraging a candidate to proceed. Sometimes it means advising them to wait and gain additional experience.

Either way, nominators provide the sort of candid feedback that can be difficult to obtain in public discussions.

The presentation's conclusion was unambiguous: prospective candidates should seek at least one nominator and avoid self-nomination whenever possible.

What voters want

Perhaps the most practical section of the presentation addressed a question that every potential candidate eventually asks: what are voters looking for?

The answer remains remarkably consistent across successful candidacies.

Experience matters

Although no formal requirement exists beyond the extended-confirmed threshold of 500 edits and a 30-day-old account, the community's expectations are dramatically higher.

Edit count remains one of the most visible indicators of experience. Most successful candidates accumulate many thousands of edits before standing. According to the presentation, candidates with fewer than 8,000 edits face a significant uphill battle.

Conduct is critical

Technical competence alone is insufficient.

Successful candidates are expected to demonstrate maturity, patience, and restraint. Editors who become embroiled in frequent conflicts often encounter skepticism from voters.

The ability to disengage from disputes, communicate civilly, and maintain a calm demeanor under pressure is widely regarded as essential.

Communication counts

Administrators spend much of their time interacting with other editors, explaining decisions, and participating in discussions.

Candidates who respond promptly to messages, write clear edit summaries, and maintain transparency in their work tend to inspire greater confidence.

Content work still matters

Despite the increasing complexity of Wikipedia's governance structures, voters continue to place substantial weight on content creation.

Good Articles, Did You Know nominations, and other visible content contributions remain valuable indicators that a candidate understands the encyclopedia's core mission.

Participation in processes such as DYK can be especially beneficial because it exposes editors to review systems and collaborative scrutiny.

Administrative experience before adminship

Many successful candidates spend years working in "admin-adjacent" areas before seeking the tools.

Deletion discussions, article reviews, policy discussions, noticeboards, and other governance processes provide opportunities to develop the judgment that administrators are expected to exercise.

By the time a candidate reaches RfA, voters generally expect evidence that they already understand how administrative decision-making works.

Preparation remains the key

If there is a single theme running through the presentation, it is preparation.

Prospective administrators are encouraged to read previous RfAs, participate in adminship discussions, seek feedback from experienced editors, and develop a broad understanding of community norms and policies.

Wikipedia's Optional RfA Candidate Poll offers one avenue for obtaining feedback, although experienced nominators can often provide the same guidance privately.

The message is not that adminship is unattainable. Rather, it is that adminship is intended for editors who have demonstrated sustained commitment, sound judgment, and the trust of their peers.

Looking ahead

The English Wikipedia's administrator shortage is not an abstract concern. Administrators perform essential governance, maintenance, and technical functions that support nearly every aspect of the encyclopedia.

The community's challenge is therefore twofold: maintaining rigorous standards while ensuring that capable editors continue to step forward.

The route to adminship may be demanding, but the need remains clear. Wikipedia requires a steady stream of experienced, trusted, and level-headed volunteers willing to accept one of the project's most important responsibilities.

In the words implied by the presentation's concluding appeal: Wikipedia needs you.