Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

News · 29 Nis 2024

Feedback on the "new RFA process": Reply

← Previous revision	Revision as of 20:25, 29 April 2024
Line 138:	Line 138:
:eople will always be more motivated to explain why they're opposing than why they're supporting. With the SecurePoll option, people whose votes were going to be "yup" or "LGTM" or "not a jerk, has clue" will probably not make any public comments at all. So the whole "discussion" could just end as a pile-on of negativity, even if the [[silent majority]] supports the candidate. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow\|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow\|talk]]) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)	:eople will always be more motivated to explain why they're opposing than why they're supporting. With the SecurePoll option, people whose votes were going to be "yup" or "LGTM" or "not a jerk, has clue" will probably not make any public comments at all. So the whole "discussion" could just end as a pile-on of negativity, even if the [[silent majority]] supports the candidate. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow\|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow\|talk]]) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think a sample size of one (and not exactly a typical RfA, either) is sufficient for determining this. [[User:Elli\|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Elli\|contribs]]) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)	:::I don't think a sample size of one (and not exactly a typical RfA, either) is sufficient for determining this. [[User:Elli\|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Elli\|contribs]]) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd still suggest a running tally of the votes, just with them being anonymous. I don't think it'd necessarily end in a wall of negativity - I suspect many would be opposers would just oppose and leave it at that instead of engaging in discussion about why they're voting the way they are unless they think it's crucial that other voters be aware of such information. And I genuinely think that people in our community would be willing to leave positive feedback in these comments like they would if they wrote an extensive support vote in the current rfa environment. [[User:Clovermoss\|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green"></span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss\|(talk)]] 20:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:This is a poor test case for the new idea. This sort of RfA would also have been painful under the old system. [[User:Firefangledfeathers\|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers\|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers\|contribs]]) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)	:This is a poor test case for the new idea. This sort of RfA would also have been painful under the old system. [[User:Firefangledfeathers\|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers\|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers\|contribs]]) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Okumaya devam et...

← Previous revision	Revision as of 20:25, 29 April 2024
Line 138:	Line 138:
:eople will always be more motivated to explain why they're opposing than why they're supporting. With the SecurePoll option, people whose votes were going to be "yup" or "LGTM" or "not a jerk, has clue" will probably not make any public comments at all. So the whole "discussion" could just end as a pile-on of negativity, even if the [[silent majority]] supports the candidate. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow\|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow\|talk]]) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)	:eople will always be more motivated to explain why they're opposing than why they're supporting. With the SecurePoll option, people whose votes were going to be "yup" or "LGTM" or "not a jerk, has clue" will probably not make any public comments at all. So the whole "discussion" could just end as a pile-on of negativity, even if the [[silent majority]] supports the candidate. [[User:Suffusion of Yellow\|Suffusion of Yellow]] ([[User talk:Suffusion of Yellow\|talk]]) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think a sample size of one (and not exactly a typical RfA, either) is sufficient for determining this. [[User:Elli\|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Elli\|contribs]]) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)	:::I don't think a sample size of one (and not exactly a typical RfA, either) is sufficient for determining this. [[User:Elli\|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Elli\|contribs]]) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I'd still suggest a running tally of the votes, just with them being anonymous. I don't think it'd necessarily end in a wall of negativity - I suspect many would be opposers would just oppose and leave it at that instead of engaging in discussion about why they're voting the way they are unless they think it's crucial that other voters be aware of such information. And I genuinely think that people in our community would be willing to leave positive feedback in these comments like they would if they wrote an extensive support vote in the current rfa environment. [[User:Clovermoss\|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green"></span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss\|(talk)]] 20:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
:This is a poor test case for the new idea. This sort of RfA would also have been painful under the old system. [[User:Firefangledfeathers\|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers\|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers\|contribs]]) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)	:This is a poor test case for the new idea. This sort of RfA would also have been painful under the old system. [[User:Firefangledfeathers\|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers\|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers\|contribs]]) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

[XFB] Konu Bilgileri

News

Moderator

Yasal Uyarı

Neler yeni

Forum istatistikleri

Bu sayfayı paylaş

Gizliliğinize değer veriyoruz