Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming: Difference between revisions

=== Discussion (PROD-style adminship) ===

We've long used the system known as [[WP:PROD]] for certain uncontroversial deletions, the idea being that we can [[Suspension of the rules|dispense with some of our formal processes]] in cases where no objections are anticipated. This idea adapts that system to the adminship context. Even the least controversial RfAs can be incredibly nerve-racking: I was recently struck by [[WP:Requests for adminship/Debriefs#May: Less Unless|this comment]], in which a candidate who recently passed RfA with 98% support noted that she nonetheless considered withdrawing because of how "emotionally draining" the process was for her. My proposal above provides an alternate system for uncontroversial candidates like her (and the majority of recent RfA candidates), allowing them to be approved without the vitriol, corrosiveness, and stress that characterize RfA. If the candidacy turns out to be controversial, that will become apparent in a much less painful way than normal, and the candidate will have some idea of what to expect if they later decide to run a standard RfA. (Note: this was vaguely inspired by [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 92#Let's end this silliness|this discussion]] and related proposals, although I replaced several parts of it, including the rather boneheaded idea of allowing a single user to object.) [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 22:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)