User:Shirahadasha/RfA proposal

Intention

The intention behind this approach is to somewhat standardize the process and create a more even, predictable, and fairer outcome, and let potential admins know what to expect and approximately when they should expect to be ready, while still permitting community discretion and escape valves to address an editor the community believes to be a problem, and still permitting a very straightforward process with "support", "oppose", and "neutral".

While oppose categories would be worded broadly enough to permit judgment, the requirement to present specific diffs would hopefully get rid of objections such as "no need for tools", objector doesn't like (permissable) userboxes, insufficient experience where guideline minimum is met, and and various others. --Shirahadasha 02:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Create guidelines to guide process: 1. A set of 'threshold requirements setting basic minimum standards that establish a clear threshold based on fairly objective criteria -- see below for a proposal. 2. A set of soft competency requirements with skills that candidate must demonstrate (see below) 3. A set of objection guidelines identifying legitimate reasons to oppose.

Process: 1. A candidate would have to meet the threshold guidelines to be considered -- speedy remove from RfA if they're not met. Suggested threshold standards: Depending on the community's preferences, 2000-3000 edits, a few hundred minimum in each of main, talk, and project space, four to six months of regular editing on the project, absence of recent blocks or repeat warnings (with mechanism to override/discount abusive ones). Also, suggest that an editor review be required first (with no particular outcome.) 2. Competencies would be demonstrated through questions etc. Candidate would have to provide diffs demonstrating them. Suggested categories: editing skills, knowledge of policy, interaction with users, civility and level-headedness during disputes, and similar. Nom and/or candidate would be required to provide examples demonstrating each of the areas. 3. A person who meets minimum guidelines is presumed eligible. Supporters don't have to explain anything, but objectors would be required to state a specific objection and give examples of the problem. Suggested Oppose standards: damage to the encyclopedia, lack of civility, serious misunderstanding of policy, poor judgment, and similar. Objectors would have to identify specific diffs and explain why they represent objectionable behavior. However, guidelines should be broad enough to permit objectors to explain why they believe an individual can't be trusted. 4. Within these guidelines, "concensus" means a supermajority vote as currently, with votes not complying with guidelines (oppose votes which don't state a legitimate reason) discounting. Thus there would be discussion, yet clear standards to discuss by which would permit support, oppose, and neutral declarations as at present.