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

*I would need to marinate on this a bit but I think, given a low-enough objection number (i.e. 10 editors), and assuming we maintained a good method of notification (e.g. watchlist notice), this would be something I'd support. I might like to see some low-threshold objective criteria applied to who may nominate and who may be nominated, though, to limit the potential of floods of dead-on-arrival candidates (perhaps limiting this to extended confirmed editors). [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 23:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

*I'd be okay with this, except that objectors need to be allowed to elaborate on their objections, so that others may be aware of possible problems the objector has found; indeed, it is often the case that an RfA starts out as uncontroversial and doesn't fail until a single oppose brings up previously-unknown issues that others learn about and thereby change their minds. As for the number, assuming a modern-day minimum participation of ~150 !votes for all but the quickly-SNOWED RfAs and assuming 90% is the "controversial" cutoff, I'd say 15 objects would be sufficient to trigger the normal process.  – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 23:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)