Tweaks to 16C: agree English Wikipedia not well served by a continuously ongoing voting system
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 16:42, 6 May 2024 |
| Line 66: | Line 66: |
| *::::::This sounds horrible. We would have admins lose the bit just because some random editor who endorsed them happened to go inactive. That is not something we want. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 16:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | *::::::This sounds horrible. We would have admins lose the bit just because some random editor who endorsed them happened to go inactive. That is not something we want. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 16:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
| *:::::::Also, most admins probably don't want to be in a permanent state of convincing people to continue their support. RFA is stressful enough, we do not need to make it permanent for every user on the site. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | *:::::::Also, most admins probably don't want to be in a permanent state of convincing people to continue their support. RFA is stressful enough, we do not need to make it permanent for every user on the site. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 16:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
| *::::::I agree with QuicoleJR that I don't think English Wikipedia is well served by having administrators evaluated publicly and thus concerned about having to attract new supporters. You've previously stated how no organization evaluates its staff in public for anyone to comment; a continuously ongoing voting system is also not something done for staff evaluation. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |
| *'''Comment''' a reasonable measure of how much attention an admin contreversey can get is the number of preliminary statements before an arbitration case. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals]] "*****" 43 uninvolved editors' comments in the span of roughly a week. This is an overestimate of what a RRFA petiton would get insofar as not every editor adding a statement wants a desysop, but its a big underestimate in that the amount of effort it takes to write a statement is much higher than what it takes to add a simple vote. [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' a reasonable measure of how much attention an admin contreversey can get is the number of preliminary statements before an arbitration case. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals]] "*****" 43 uninvolved editors' comments in the span of roughly a week. This is an overestimate of what a RRFA petiton would get insofar as not every editor adding a statement wants a desysop, but its a big underestimate in that the amount of effort it takes to write a statement is much higher than what it takes to add a simple vote. [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 16:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
| *:also there's a disincentive to add redundant preliminary statements [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC) | *:also there's a disincentive to add redundant preliminary statements [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
Okumaya devam et...