Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives

WP:RFA/RADICAL

This page in a nutshell: RFA Radical alternatives is a sub project the RfA reform 2011 project‎. It introduces the possibilities of fundamentally different methods for selecting sysops as opposed to suggestions for reform of the current Request for adminship process. List your suggested radical process here, but please discuss your views and suggestions on this page's talk page.

This project is divided into sub pages in order to keep discussions focused and on track.
Read the main page first, then join a discussion on the respective page.
Please do not start a new thread or a new sub page on something that is already under discussion - see the TOC on each talk page.

Suggestions

Briefly summarise here your description of a radical alternative to the current RfA system.
Discussion takes place only on the talk page.

Rolling administrator elections

1. ELECTION FREQUENCY

1.1 Every month, an election is held to appoint administrators.

2. NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES

2.1 Any editor in good standing^[1] may nominate themselves for election.

2.2 Candidates must submit their nomination at least seven days before the close of the election.

2.3 Unsuccessful candidates may renominate again in future elections.

2.4 Any Bureaucrat may order a Sock Puppet Investigation on any or all candidates, for any or no reason.^[2]

3. METHOD OF ELECTION

3.1 Eligible voters can vote for as many or as few candidates as they like

3.2 Voters may only cast positive votes^[3]

3.3 The candidates are ranked in order of votes received. Candidates ranked in the top 10% are elected as administrators

3.4 In the case of ties, the candidate(s) with the earlier account creation date(s) are elected

3.5 The Wikimedia Foundation may veto any successful candidate, for any or no reason, as an Office Action^[4]

4. TERM LIMIT

4.1 Administrators elected in this fashion are granted administrator status for a period of three years.

4.2 Administrators may stand for re-election within three months of the end of their term.

4.3 Administrators standing for re-election retain their administrator status until the election results are declared.

4.4 Administrators that are unsuccessful in standing for re-election lose their administrator status immediately, even if there is some time left in their previous term

5. RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTING RfA POLICY

5.1 Existing administrators elected under the old RfA process retain their lifetime administrator status.

5.2 The current RfA process would run in parallel with this process, and admins successful under that process would be appointed for life as is currently the case.

5.3 Candidates may not concurrently nominate for election and the normal RfA process

5.4 There would be no difference in technical tools between administrators elected under this method and the existing RfA process

5.5 Administrators elected under this policy would be categorised as "Elected Administrators"

Notes

If this new process is successful, it is expected that the old RfA process would end, and remaining active admins appointed under the old RfA model would be auto-promoted to bureaucrats at some point.

Footnotes

^ "Good standing" is to be defined
^ This is to prevent abuse of the election process, by stacking the field with sock puppets.
^ Voting for every candidate except for the candidates you dislike is effectively the same as negative voting.
^ This is in order to satisfy legal requirements such as the viewing of deleted content

Wikihow proposal

Elections

Elections every year in January
All admins can nominate any editor they think would be a good admin
Minimum amount of nom's, or else election isn't held (20? 40? 100???)
Nom's start in November, end at Christmas
Due to high volume, staggering will take place, meaning a year with 40 noms will have ten per week, for each of January's four weeks
Can possibly overflow into first part of February
All nominees must have opped in to X!'s edit counter
Elected for >=3 years
Current admins granfathered into lifetime admins
Same % guidelines as are used currently (<70%, fail, 70%-80%, 'crat chat, >80%, pass).
Oppose votes without diffs to back comments up will be tagged with a request to add in diffs. If no diffs have been added, the vote can be flagged by anyone involved after 3 hours have passed. The vote still counts as a vote, but in 'Crat Chats and certain fail cases, 'Crats are advised to take these votes into consideration.

Desysopping

Admins must participate at Administrator review once every year until end of term.
Advertised on both admin's talkpage and in Signpost.
Everyone is allowed to comment in review on admin's actions.
'Crat closes the review, decides if the content of review signifies dissatisfication with admin
If so, admin sent to a (quarterly? thirdly? instant?) 50%(?) 1 vote of confidence, where oppose votes retain their restrictions from above.
If failed, must wait a year before requesting another nomination
If admin fails to add their review by the end of one year (possible two week grace period?), automatic desysop, can regain rights by petitioning ArbCom or by participating in a so-called "special election" (this in the situation that someone is inactive just before their admin review deadline)
If admin passess all three (five?) admin reviews, he is automatically reconfirmed for another three years.

Possibilities

Following should be discussed at RfA:

Two terms max?
No limit of terms, but after first (second?) term(s) needs a reconfirmation RfA?
Admin rights kept based only off of Admin Review passess?

Failed proposals

[1] "Good standing" is to be defined

[2] This is to prevent abuse of the election process, by stacking the field with sock puppets.

[3] Voting for every candidate except for the candidates you dislike is effectively the same as negative voting.

[4] This is in order to satisfy legal requirements such as the viewing of deleted content

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

v t e RfA reform 2011: Main page, sub pages, and their sections
Please add comments/new threads on the appropriate talk pages
Main page	About this project – Project overview Talk What this project is not about Goals Objectives Essential reading for task force members
Candidates	Minimum requirements – Proposal to include a minimum requirement for RfAs. Talk Criteria for candidates – Sortable tables and discussion on criteria for adminship. Ideas for WP:NOTNOW prevention. Talk Unsuccessful candidates – Tables: Tenure, edit counts, what they are doing now. More resources for WP:NOTNOW prevention. Talk
Voting	Voting – Extensive data, tables, and graphs on voting patterns and participation. Talk RfA questions – Sortable tables. Controversial questions posed by voters at RfA April 2010 – April 2011. Talk Tool: RfA Vote Counter. Complete breakdown of any editor's RfA votes.
Clerking	RfA Clerks – Ideas for clerks to moderate RfA. Talk
Draft proposals	Possible proposals – A basic summary of ideas that the task force is developing and queuing for development based on the active discussions above. Talk
Radical alternatives	Radical alternatives – Ideas and suggestions for entirely new RfA systems. Talk Pre-RfA proposal – Suggestion to have a "pre-RfA". Sysop on request - a radical alternative for creating a two-tiered admin process, where the one tier can be requested based on criteria.
Downturn	Downturns - Chart, stats, and summary of RfA nominations 2010 - 2011
Task force	Project coordinators Active participants
Current admin count: 845 (list all), 733 of them active (as of 10 September 2011). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months. 235 have not edited in at least 3 months. (list)