Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Mailer diablo

The main reason people do not wish to run for RfA is fear. Therefore we should have a pre-RfA process that should get constructive feedback and does not penalize editors if it is determined that they are not ready for an RfA.

This proposal is a hybrid improvement based on the existing proposed deletion, editor review and featured article review processes.

Pre-RfA process

 * This pre-RfA process shall be transcluded on the Requests of Adminship page, so that pre-RfA reviews can be seen by as many as possible (similar to FARs).
 * Any editor who wishes to withdraw a pre-RfA can do so at any time without penalty by removing his pre-RfA review from the RfA page.
 * Any editor who has a previous pre-RfA and wishes to try again can blank the page (rather than starting another page) and start over. They will indicate editors to look at the page history to look at previous pre-RfA records.
 * Other editors can raise their concerns or indicate their support/encouragement on the pre-RfA. They shall provide constructive feedback for the editor to work on the concerns. Any comment on the pre-RfA does not directly affect the outcome of RfA. This will give the applying editor a gauge on his chances of passing RfA and to address concerns that a normal RfA may not be able to offer.
 * A Q&A section may be asked by editors to determine the level of competence the applying editor needs to pass the RfA.
 * A section should be dedicated to allow for potential nominators to express their interest to nominate and work with the applying editor on writing a nomination.
 * Pre-RfAs will run for a minimum seven days, and fourteen days maximum. At end of the fourteen days, if no nomination statement is on the pre-RfA, it shall be considered as withdrawn and removed at no penalty.
 * B'crats reserve the right to remove any pre-RfAs that are clearly abusing the process.

RfA process

 * Retains current format. No change to time period and the process of determination of consensus.
 * No additional questions shall be added to RfAs of editors who have chosen to go through the pre-RfA process other than the standard RfA questions.
 * To attract editors to go through pre-RfA process, their applications should be reviewed more leniently (e.g. minor mistakes that can be justified, such as one wrong CSD tagging, should be given leeway) by the B'crats than a straight RfA-only application.
 * Candidates may opt to skip the pre-RfA process, but the passing the RfA shall be based on existing standards.

Advantages

 * Modularity. It is easy to implement a pre-RfA trial and can be removed if it does not work out.
 * Builds upon existing RfA process.
 * Encourages more potential admins to the process, as disincentive of failure is reduced.

Comments

 * I do like to support this proposal, but how can we ensure participation by the community in this process, as this is somewhat similar to "Editor Review" which seriously lacks participation by the community as compared to the actual RFA. -- S M S  Talk 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are substantially more editors waiting for review at editor review than there would be users at RFA. They're both well-watched venues. One has an insurmountable backlog and the other is experiencing something of a drought. So I don't foresee lack of community participation becoming an issue if this proposal were implemented. Tyrol5   [Talk]  21:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I may have wrongly put my point. I meant here that the editor review board has a backlog as very few editors review other users, many users go without a review for months after putting up a request, so how this proposal will ensure that the community members will review or comment on the editor under review in the same frequency as they do at actual RFA and not like Editor review. -- S M S  Talk 22:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there will be a much smaller number of editors seeking pre-RFA review than there are at editor review. With this in mind as well as the significant number of editors who habitually participate at/watch RFA, I don't think there'd be a shortage in participation in a system like this. I doubt there'd be more than two or three candidates going through pre-RFA at any given time&mdash;significantly less than the backlog at editor review. When editors' attentions are focused on just a few candidates as opposed to a large backlog, participation would almost certainly be more concentrated. Pre-RFA would also be more objective, I think, than editor review. Most editors have an idea of what they'd like to see in a prospective administrator and can evaluate/discuss a candidate based on that, but the same isn't necessarily true of editor review, which tends to be a more subjective assessment of an editor's contributions. I'd think this objectivity of discussion would be a galvanizing factor in attracting participation. Keep in mind, also, that we don't want over-participation that overwhelms the candidate. There needs to be a healthy balance, and I don't think any further measures need to be taken to strike that balance. Tyrol5   [Talk]  22:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The main difference between ER and pre-RfA is that the latter will be considered with a view towards obtaining adminship and will be part of the RfA process. I understand there is a very parallel problem going on between peer review and featured article candidates. Not all ER editors intend to run for adminship; nor do all articles going through peer review go through FACs. I purposely incorporated the 'additional questions during pre-RfAs only for those who choose to go through pre-RfA' clause into the this proposal for two purposes: (1) The RfA crowd will be forced to take pre-RfAs seriously and (2) it gives potential candidates an incentive to be feel less exposed when running the actual RfA. A common complaint by candidates is the quality of additional questions that are asked by other editors during their RfAs. - Mailer Diablo 21:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)