User:Ajraddatz/RfA reform

Background
RfA has been broken since I've been a regular editor here. I started seriously editing in 2010, during the last days of RfA attracting a decent number of people. Since then, the numbers have trickled down to only a dozen or so people interested in running the gauntlet per year. Why is that? Because the process of becoming an admin is too onerous for the reward. Most candidates will spend over a year campaigning for RfA - doing tasks they wouldn't otherwise do, being hyperactive, and trying to not step on toes. Then they need to go through a week-long public shaming process, where anyone can say whatever they want, and any small mistakes in the candidate's history are publicly debated. Then, if they pass, they get to be an admin! Responsible for... mindlessly deleting pages and blocking vandals. Was it worth it?

In the real world, I analyze problems and develop policy solutions for a government. This is fundamentally a policy problem: this process, invented in the early days of Wikipedia, is no longer equipped to function on a top-5 website. But we're in luck, because as this is a website and all of our policies and processes were just made up by some dudes before us, we too can make new things. This page outlines one possible approach to an RfA alternative. If such a system were implemented, it almost certainly wouldn't fix the problem entirely or overnight. Rather, it is a possible solution that could be tested and evaluated.

The most functional userrights requesting process on enwiki is WP:PERM, so the obvious initial solution is to change the adminship requesting process to something similar. Because access to deleted revisions requires community comment according to the WMF, there does need to be a community consultation period for each request. But that consultation period can be structured in a way that ameliorates many of the problems with RfA today. Foremost here is establishing standards for candidates; I know how daunting this part may seem to gain consensus on, but ultimately it just needs to be something. Perfect can't be the enemy of good enough. And any of this could be changed in the future.

All of that said, this process assumes that fixing RfA is something that the community would be open to doing. I don't think that the community has any collective desire to do this. Overall, I think that people are very happy with the status quo. But if they aren't in the future, these thoughts will have been written down.

General criteria
To be eligible for adminship, users must meet the following general criteria: Candidates are responsible for outlining how they meet each of these criteria in their nomination statement.
 * At least one year of experience on Wikipedia
 * At least 5,000 edits across Wikipedia
 * Demonstrated ability to find, understand, and implement policies
 * Demonstrated ability to work collaboratively and civilly with other editors
 * Demonstrated use for adminship tools in at least one area of the project
 * No blocks within the last six months that have not been overturned

The process

 * 1) To file a request for adminship, please start a new request on this page using the formatting below:

EXAMPLE
A concise statement, usually only one or two paragraphs, that outlines how you meet each element of the general criteria. ~
 * 1) Once you have posted your request, it will be evaluated by a bureaucrat to ensure that it meets the criteria. Bureaucrats should accept requests that meet the criteria, and also accept requests that are likely to meet the criteria in ambiguous cases. If the request is declined at this stage, then bureaucrats must leave a summary explaining specifically why and outlining a path for the user to resolve the outstanding concerns for a future request.
 * 2) If the request is accepted, then it is opened for a five day community comment period. This is not a vote; comments presented should focus specifically on the general criteria. Other comments on the suitability of the candidate may be left, but if they are not connected to the criteria then they will generally be weighed less by the closing bureaucrat.
 * 3) After five days, the request will be closed by a bureaucrat, and if there is consensus to promote then the user will be granted adminship. If the request is closed as unsuccessful, then the closing bureaucrat must leave a summary explaining specifically why and outlining a path for the user to resolve the outstanding concerns for a future request.