Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Rschen7754 (talk | contribs) |
Enterprisey (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 731:
#I think this has potential. A longer question period and lower pass percentage would probably be better, but this is probably the right alternative to the traditional method. [[User:Aircorn|Air<b style="color: green;">''corn''</b>]] [[User talk:Aircorn|(talk)]] 02:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
# I like this idea. I agree with all above me who requested for a longer period of discussions. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🔔]]</sup></small> 03:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
#Support with a week or more for the discussion. I carefully considered the opposes. The toothpaste is already out of the tube on it being a consensus-driven activity. RfA isn't (any longer) a good use-case for a consensus-based discussion. The outcome is binary; there can be no compromises. There'ss no way for a solution to anything to gradually evolve; there's only accusations and defenses. Bilorv put it well: decrease perceived scrutiny without decreasing actual scrutiny. As for other concerns: for suffrage requirements, the voter rolls are public; for gaming, the same concerns apply to ACE; and for difficulty of implementation, I'm sure something can be figured out and I would hate to see a good idea die just because implementing it is tough. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 07:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
===Oppose 8B Admin elections===
| |||