Wikipedia:Qualified adminship voting

Qualified adminship voting aims to ensure that legitimate concerns are not overruled by Wikipedia's need for more admins, but that good candidates are not denied adminship by frivolous or irrelevant concerns. The primary reason for not considering RFA as a formal 'vote' at the moment is because of these frivolous concerns - for example, if the current RFA was a 'vote' then a Support on the basis that the candidate has written 3 featured articles would be given one quarter (since Support must equal 4x Oppose) of the weight as a 'Only has 1999 edits, my standard is 2000' Oppose. By ensuring that ALL opposition is on a valid basis, this procedure would allow consensus voting

The actual procedure (nomination, length of time etc.) would stay the way RFA is just now - there is no particular problem with that.

Eligibility

 * A candidate must have at least 1000 edits to be eligible
 * A candidate must have made his/her first edit at least 3 months before the RFA date to be eligible
 * Any RFA for a candidate who does not meet these criteria would be deleted (NOT closed as failed)

Threshold

 * Any candidate getting at least 70% support would be successful.

Voting

 * Any vote based on the following criteria may be struck by anyone (ie : struck vote will be discounted. If there is dispute as to whether a vote is based on such criteria or not, the decision will be made by the closing bureaucrat:
 * Edit count (other than the eligiblity threshold)
 * Length of time on Wikipedia (again, other than the eligibility threshold)
 * Wikipolitics (e.g. views on a particular practise, guideline, deletion controversy etc.)
 * Usage of edit summaries
 * Number of edits to a particular namespace (NOT including levels of contribution to SPECIFIC community processes e.g. Afd)
 * Any vote which makes an accusation (e.g. incivility, personal attacks, vandalism) which is not accompanied by at least one diff which supports the accusation.