 | This is an essay on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
To solve or mitigate a problem, you must first define it. This page is an attempt to answer the questions: "What are the Wikipedia:RFA problems?" and "How can they be solved"
(Suggested changes on talk page please, but do feel free to copyedit)
RFA is the process by which Wikipedia appoints new administrators, - a group of editors with a few extra powers and arguably some extra status within the community. There seems to be a common consensus that there are problems with RFA, comments such as RFA is broken & RFA is a joke are frequently made and rarely disputed.
Up until the spring of 2008 there were usually 100 or so admins appointed by RFA every quarter, however the last three quarters of 2008 saw only 116 successful RFAs in 9 months - well below half the historic rate; and there were fewer active Admins at the end of 2008 than at the beginning.
All other signs are that Wikipedia is healthy and growing, with the RFA drought starting just when an all time peak of new editors should have been producing a record crop of admins.