Forum:RfA Reforms Planning

The RfA policy as it stands has in it's first use indicated clearly that a more stringent policy is needed. The following outline is for a reformed RfA policy that is much more stringent than the original. But I figured that an opportunity for comment from the various indviduals who would like to was deserved. So, here's the outline. Feedback would be much appreciated.


 * Sysop Overview
 * Special Tools
 * Protect/Unprotect/Edit Protected Pages
 * Delete/Undelete Pages
 * Block/Unblock Users
 * Rollback Rights
 * Ability to edit the MediaWiki Namespace
 * Duties
 * Process AfDs & Keep the Wiki Clean
 * Make use of Special:BrokenRedirects, Special:DoubleRedirects, Special:Uncategorizedpages, & Special:Wantedpages to do so.
 * Patrol Edits & Attend to Vandals
 * General Coordination & Collaboration for Forward Progress of the Wiki
 * Participate in Policy Draft Process
 * Ensure Community Government is maintained
 * Enforce Wiki Policies
 * Maintain and Improve the MediaWiki Namespace Pages
 * Welcome New Editors using Welcome! and Welcome-anon
 * Find & Eliminate Spam
 * Import Transwiki Page Canidates from other Wikimedia Projects
 * Expectation to Deport themselves in accordance with Wiki Policy at all times.


 * Eligibility requirements
 * Membership of Wiki for at least 1 year
 * Consistent Edit history for at least the previous month with preference for longer.
 * Behavior lies within the bounds of Policy
 * Quality Edits (IE: You are not rolledback frequently when editing)
 * At least 50% of all edits lie within the Main, Warriors Wiki, Help and Template Namespaces.
 * Flexibility of Requirements: Requirements can be waives for users who shine in some way. Waiver of requirements can be done during the nomination process but the nominee, or their second, must put forth WHY that requirements should be waived for that user.


 * RfA Nomination Process
 * Nomination is opened (by the Nominee). The Nominee must provide an explanation of why they should be considered for a spot on the Admin Team.
 * The Nominee must be Second-ed. This second must meet a Membership length of 3 months, with consistent edits in the prior month. This Second may not be a Sysop or Rollbacker. The Second must provide an explanation of why they support this user. (This intends to illustrate that the Nominee has some level of community support)
 * Existing Sysops vote. All Ties are broken by Rollback Votes. If no rollbacks vote within 1 week, ties end in the RfA Nomination Failing. (If the nominator is a Rollback, they are not eligible to vote in their own RfA)
 * RfA Nominations that pass are moved into Voting.


 * RfA Voting Eligibility
 * Membership of the Wiki for at least 3 Months.
 * Consistent edit history for at least the previous month with a preference for longer.
 * At least 50% of all edits lie within the Main, Warriors Wiki, Help and Template Namespaces.
 * Past participation in the Wiki Government via Discussion, AfD or FAN.


 * Individual Vote Eligibility
 * Voting individual must meet the eligibility requirements to qualify to vote.
 * Voting Individual may not have been solicited by the Nominee, the Second, or any other person to involve themselves in the election.
 * Unsigned votes are to be immediately Struck.
 * Any vote containing a clear personal attack on any person are to be immediately struck.
 * Votes are struck at the discretion of the Sysops. If the Sysops fail to agree on the actions surrounding an indvidual vote, it will stand, but NOT be eligible in the case of a win by the number of 'questionable votes'. (IE: 10 votes for, 12 against, but 3 questionable votes against would result in a FOR result.)
 * Each vote must include support text
 * Each vote is assigned points. High Quality Votes are given 3 points. Standard Quality votes are given 2. Low quality votes are given 1. (Weight scale will provide encouragement to quality comments and deeper consideration of the potential Sysop).
 * Vote text may be "As so-in-so" and still count for full standard vote points.
 * Votes without an explanation of support are to be regarded as of a lower quality than those that do (Sysop discussion to lowering vote quality. Failure to agree results in standard vote points), but votes without comments are still counted (just assigned Low Quality Vote Points).

Kitsufox Fox's Den 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)