Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-23/News and notes

Discuss this story

I'm rather certain that the issues with RfA aren't how perfect or not the people pass, but how many pass. And the issue is that there is only 4, apparently. Admittedly better than the 2 or so of earlier months this year, but far less than the multiple double digits of years past. Silver seren^C 19:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly true, but assuming they all pass (which looks likely), six editors will have passed RfA this month—all with flying colors. It sure isn't what it used to be, but it's a reason to be optimistic. David1217 ^{What I've done} 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more optimistic about it once we manage to do it for three months in a row. Just one month could be a random blip in the system, without any indication of improvement to the overall problem. Silver seren^C 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that alleged higher standards have been the cause of the dearth of nominations. As the initiator of what was probably the largest in-depth investigation into what is is wrong with RfA, I remain convinced that the core issue is/was one of the behaviour of the voters. Recent RfAs have been less (but not entirely) subject to heated comment and unreasonable votes and may possibly be the reason for the sudden spate of new nominations, but to reiterate SilverSeren, the number of RfAs is still to low to be indicative of a trend that the process has finally cleaned itself up. I hope it has. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that ArbCom seems to be more willing to desysop might augur well for increasing the pass rate, once voters know that it's not a job for life—that is, they might be just a little less risk-averse if underperforming and rogue admins can more easily be demoted. That's a reason for forging ahead with a community-based desysopping process, and I believe one is in the making as we speak. Tony (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]