User talk:28bytes
May music[edit]
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6[edit]
As this was the first running of an experimental RfA, I'm not sure that less than 3 hours was enough time to see how it would pan out. I would say that the candidate hasn't presented themselves well, and, as it stood at the point you closed it, I would have opposed; however, it might be the case that under this experimental system that a lot more objections would surface early on. Or that when a candidate can see how their behaviour is giving concern that they may start making amends that will cause people to start supporting. We just don't know. SilkTork (talk) 07:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi SilkTork. Fair point on the 3 hours. It was around 1:00 AM my time when I saw the RfA, and if there hadn’t been over 20 opposes already, I would have just gone to bed and looked in on it again in the morning. But seeing the numbers where they stood, I felt like the chances were very low that the result would be anything other than the guy getting beaten up for another 8 hours with hurt feelings on all sides and questions about where the ’crats were and why no one did anything to stop it, much like in last month’s RfA, which was halted at 0/0/0. Realistically I don’t see how this RfA could have succeeded, and I feel like letting the oppose count get up to 30 or 40 before calling it off would have done a disservice to the candidate, but I’m certainly open to the idea that I’ve misjudged it. 28bytes (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- In cases like this it comes down to a judgement call, which you made as you saw it, and I don't see any real advantage to re-opening it, but I'm thinking that moving forward more information may be gathered if an experimental RfA is left to unfold a little longer. Just between you and me (and your talkpage watchers) when I saw that RfA in its early stages I wanted to put an end to it because it was clear that the candidate was not the most appropriate one to be trialling the new process because of their unusually limited approach to communication. I feel sure they would have failed under the traditional RfA, but they might have gathered more support early on which might have led to a more balanced discussion. Perhaps this is indicating that the new system is quicker at highlighting a candidate's weaknesses. SilkTork (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- All good points. Another thought I had was that it would be nice if people “held their fire” on additional opposes once there were 15 or 20 opposes already (in cases of <10 supports) so that things could run a little longer without fear of a pile-on. But then again, we’re already asking them to wait 2 days before opposing, so that’s probably not realistic either. 28bytes (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- My anecdotal observation of various polls or consumer reviews is that when a trend starts, a pile on follows. I guess we are communal animals, and there is something instinctively reassuring about following the herd and being part of the pack. Emotions are infectious - laughter, fear, joy, anger, etc - it's difficult to remain aloof from these emotions when they are swelling around us. Intellectually someone can think: "This doesn't need my oppose/support", but emotionally they get gripped by the moment, and want to be seen as part of the community. Especially as on Wikipedia we put a deal of weight on being part of the community. SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- All good points. Another thought I had was that it would be nice if people “held their fire” on additional opposes once there were 15 or 20 opposes already (in cases of <10 supports) so that things could run a little longer without fear of a pile-on. But then again, we’re already asking them to wait 2 days before opposing, so that’s probably not realistic either. 28bytes (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- In cases like this it comes down to a judgement call, which you made as you saw it, and I don't see any real advantage to re-opening it, but I'm thinking that moving forward more information may be gathered if an experimental RfA is left to unfold a little longer. Just between you and me (and your talkpage watchers) when I saw that RfA in its early stages I wanted to put an end to it because it was clear that the candidate was not the most appropriate one to be trialling the new process because of their unusually limited approach to communication. I feel sure they would have failed under the traditional RfA, but they might have gathered more support early on which might have led to a more balanced discussion. Perhaps this is indicating that the new system is quicker at highlighting a candidate's weaknesses. SilkTork (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)