Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-05-16/Special report

← Back to Special report

Discuss this story

• you can change the process. you can't change culture. ltbdl (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Um, yes, even major cultures can be changed. I recall when drink-driving was the norm in the UK, for instance; I heard car crashes every Friday or Saturday night as drunken drivers lost control and hit a wall or a lamp-post, on an empty road. Now, people arrange to get home by other means if they intend to go out and drink. So a culture embedded for decades among millions of people can be shifted, with patience and persuasion. We'll get it done here too, slowly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Has there been any comparisons of this issue with other large Wikipedias? I notice on a brief look that German and French Wikipedia admin numbers are similarly falling over time. While RfA process changes are certainly worthwhile, I'm not 100% sure that even a great process alone will halt the issue completely. SFB 22:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Sillyfolkboy: Nothing I'm aware of, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong! And yes, obviously the RfA process is only one of the many reasons why the admin pool has kept shrinking, as the overall number of editors has done (except during the pandemic years, maybe), but hey, at least this reform might be useful to stabilize and solidify a core of dedicated users. Oltrepier (talk) 08:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-22/Special report, a report from 2012 by @Jan eissfeldt:. It discussed admin reforms (specifically recall) from the German Wikipedia from 2009, and how they affected adminship in the next 3 years. Soni (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @Soni: Nice, thank you for sharing this, and for your work on the current reform process! Oltrepier (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• The short answer to the question posed by this special report is No. The proposal to make the first two days discussion-only has not proved to be successful. Actually, it's just taken a single RfA to prove it to be a disaster. – wbm1058 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • With due respect, ToadetteEdit knew they weren't going to pass RFA before they self-nominated. I'd say we didn't learn very much, except that when an unqualified candidate shows up, they'll likely be dealt with roughly. IMHO, this wasn't a reasonable test of the change because this candidate wouldn't have passed under any RFA regime, and even knew it beforehand. Technically, an outcome which 1) taught the community a valuable and unexpected lesson, and 2) didn't advance a poor candidate, is a win for those of us willing to try something different. No harm and it will never happen again. Those are wins. BusterD (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Editor's note: I just wanted to thank theleekycauldron once again for agreeing to a "mini-interview" and for the work she's doing, together with other people! Oltrepier (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Likewise, thanks :) appreciated your reaching out! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing changes. It’s a nice effort, and nice coverage, all leading to zero sum. The community is beholden to the broken process, it can’t be change, altered, reorganized, or otherwise fixed. 2600:1011:B188:718D:5C7:E042:B7D6:2426 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)