Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposals to overhaul the process by editors


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Egg Centric
 * A proposal to give or remove adminship to any candidates based on a decision by 10 admins. Can be overruled by 100 admins.


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Thine Antique Pen
 * A proposal to have a specified board of trusted Bureaucrats and Administrators to review a RfA to speed up the progress. More details on the proposal page.


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Dank
 * A proposal to give up on RFCs and instead empower a small board to experiment for 3 months


 * I've long thought RfA should be a two step process, with an apprenticeship period, say 9 months, during which the editor has limited admin tools, e.g. 12 hour block max with a required report to a watchlist. The apprentice would be expected to spend some amount of time in several of the admin areas. He or she would then be be judged on their record during the apprentice period and promoted, denied or maybe renewed as an apprentice for one more term. The criteria for entering the apprentice level would be more relaxed, e.g. some level of experience (e.g 2 years, 1000 edits) and no major issues in the past year. --agr (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Ryan Vesey
 * This contains two proposals, one for a change to the request for adminship process and one for a change to the beginning of an RfA. The proposal to change the process is designed to facilitate discussion and eliminate formal !voting.  A board, similar to that in the proposal of  would review the case after the discussion occurs and make a decision.  The second is also designed to facilitate discussion, but creates a Pre-RfA discussion process where questions and discussion can occur.  No !voting should take place, but advice can be given to the candidate.  At the end of the discussion period, the candidate can choose to formally start the RfA or wait until a later date.  The discussion section would become part of the RfA should they choose to continue.


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by TomStar81
 * This postulates an entirely new method for requesting additional editor rights. It kind of borrows a little from other proposals, so do not be too surprised if some of it sounds familiar.


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by TheSpecialUser
 * The new proposed process by me is divided into 3 phases. First phase features a Pre-RfA process. Second, the regular RfA through which admins are selected currently. And the third, with a Post-RfA system to give an editor who barely doesn't reach consensus a chance of getting admin rights.  →TSU tp*


 * Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Leaky Caldron
 * Leave everything as it is, close these (some ridiculous and complex) proposals quickly and require anyone wasting an excessive amount of time pontificating about them to complete 100 hours of Wikipedia community service. Leaky  Caldron  14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Anthonyhcole
 * The community, via discussion on the respective talk pages, constructs the cases for and against the candidate as two coherent essays, followed by a community vote. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RfA reform 2012/Proposal by Mailer diablo
 * To introduce an optional one to two week pre-RfA process that is transincluded in the RfA page, where editors can obtain feedback on their suitability to be an admin. Pre-RfAs can be withdrawn at no penalty, and any pre-RfAs that have decided to proceed to RfA will enjoy a more lenient outlook by the B'crats. Those who skip the pre-RfA shall retain the existing standards. - Mailer Diablo 07:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)