Revision as of 00:43, 11 October 2021 edit Chetsford (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 37,657 edits →‎Discussion (PROD-style adminship): that's a good point ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:44, 11 October 2021 edit undo Chetsford (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 37,657 edits →‎Discussion (PROD-style adminship): ce Next edit →
Line 358: ::Agree with the above (re comments). [[User:Chetsford\|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford\|talk]]) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC) ::The point about elaboration is a fair one. The problem, of course, is that objections trigger responses, and responses trigger replies, and replies trigger questions for the candidate, and soon we're back to the corrosiveness of RfA. Perhaps an option would be to allow threaded discussion only on the talk page (like es-wiki does for their RfAs) or some other designated forum. [[User:Extraordinary Writ\|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ\|talk]]) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC) :::That's a good point I didn't think of; allowing comments risks this turning into RfA Lite. I like your idea for limiting discussion to a secondary space like Talk (or maybe just reverting to the original idea of no discussion). [[User:Chetsford\|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford\|talk]]) 00:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

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