Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives

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

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 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.

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 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. 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"

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

 * RFA as RFC
 * RFA as RFC/Werdna