This page is about trying to find a better method to replace the current request for adminship format.
The aim is to collect lots of proposals, whittle them down until the most popular method is found and then get the community's consensus to implement it.
Instructions edit
- In this stage, any editor in good standing can make a proposal and place it in the proposed section.
- A proposal is a statement about how you think we should select admins - e.g. "A person gets nominated and then for a period of seven days, people vote support or oppose. If the person gets greater than 70%, they get adminship."
- Please do not propose the current method, or a no change method.
- Any editor in good standing can second it and then place it in the seconded section.
- After a proposal has been seconded, it can then be voted on by any autoconfirmed user. To decrease the number of votes needed cast, any proposal that receives five or more votes, and more than or equal to 80% support or opposition will be accepted for the next stage or rejected respectively.
- Latter stages will whittle down the proposals until we have just one. This proposal will then be put on the village pump proposals as a method to replace the existing RfA.
How to Propose a New Method edit
- Replace "METHOD NAME" in the text box below with your method's name.
- Click propose method. If the name already exists, please choose another name (you could always append a 2).
- Write your method in the method field.
- Copy
{{User:A930913/RfA/METHOD NAME}}into the Proposed section below and replace "METHOD NAME" with the method name used above.
How to Second a Method edit
If you find a method you agree with, add your name to the "Seconded by" field and move the {{User:A930913/RfA/METHOD NAME}} for the method, from the Proposed section into the Seconded section.
Proposed Methods edit
Modularisation edit
Method: Break up adminship into smaller modules (to be determined in a similar fashion as this) such as "vandal fighter" and "protector". Who got these modules would be determined in a similar fashion as the current RfA.
Proposer of the method: A930913
Seconder of the method:
Comments edit
This would mean fewer concerns being expressed over the possible misuse of rights in areas where the person in question has little or no expertise.
Also, it would mean that you can go to a user who knows what they are doing in that area, rather than going to an admin and getting the response "sorry I don't know how x works." 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 20:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
For edit
Against edit
Seconded Methods edit
Accepted Methods edit
Extended content
|
|---|
Rejected Methods edit
Extended content
|
|---|