This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

The Proposal with a Thousand Faces is a basic framework that tends to be shared by RFA/Admin reform proposals. Specific details vary from proposal to proposal, but the same basic pattern is there.

First an initiation threshold or commencement threshold must be reached before beginning a larger process. Next, a wide community assessment is conducted. Finally, the process is closed to produce a definite outcome.

Proposals vary in their requirements for initiation (and the certification of whether those requirements have been met). Some require only a single user to initiate, others require a majority of the arbs.

The community assessment is typically conducted as a poll, poll with rationale, discussion, or some combination. Some have unstructured discussion, others have a strict poll format with discussion moved to talk.

The closure has the widest variation-- some call for success to be 25% support (aka a 75% consensus to desysop), while others require full RFA-level support for success. Some proposals require the closer(s) to consider arguments and rationale, some call for a more straightforward assessment of confidence.

Initiation is an initial smaller-scale step that begins the admin status evaluation. Akin to WP:SNOWBALL or WP:NOTNOW, initiation requirement stop processes that have no useful purpose in proceeding.

Initiation requirements usually require the signatures of some number of arbs, crats, admins, or established editors.

Example Initiation Requirement:

• Single established editor
• Single admin
• 10 admins within a week
• 100 established users

Some initiation schemes place a timeframe or expiration period on initiation.

For some initiations, certification is automatic-- once the initiation requirements have been met, the process begins. Other other initiations, the initiation must be certified by an arb, crat, or admin.

• Certification is automatic / anyone can certify
• Certification by any arbs, crats, or admin
• Certification by any arb or crat
• Certification by any arb
• Certification by majority of arbcom

Under what circumstances should the initiation be certified? What standard should be used to determine grounds for certification?

During the assessment, the entire community is asked to provide feedback on Admin Status.

What information should the community provide during the assessment process? In what format should that information be organized?

• votes alone
• votes with short rationale (RFA-Style)
• Statements and support (RFC Style)
• Unstructured discussion (Talk-page Style)

How long should the assessment process run? At what point should closure be possible.

• pure fixed timeframe
• fixed timeframe + possible extensions under specific conditions
• NOTNOW/SNOWBALL closures allowed when outcome is patently obvious?

Closure, based on the information provided in the Assessment process, produces a final result on whether the individual will be admin.

Who does the closing?

• Crat
• Two Crats
• Majority of Crats
• Arb
• Majority of Arbcom

• Own judgment about adminship
• Assessment of community confidence
• exclusion or less weight to opinions by new users, missing rationale, or invalid rationale.

Disclaimer

I've tried to phrase most of the existing proposals in terms of this framework. Be aware, it's my own quick "back of the envelope" attempt to summarize and since it was not done by the proposers, it may not accurately reflect a true understand of the proposals. When in doubt, please read the actual proposal.

• Initiation requires : Majority of Arbs
• Assessment is: standard RFA
• Assessment closed by: Crat, as RFA

• Initiation: any established user in good standing
• Certified by: two uninvolved admins
• Certification criteria:

• Nominator meets criteria,
• "For actions that involve use of an administrative function (something an auto-confirmed user couldn't do) or abuse of the role of an administrator".
• "double-check that the request has prima facie grounds"

• Assessment: RFA

• Closure:

• Any 'crat
• Closure Criteria: "Is there a clear consensus for desysopping?"

• Initiation: Single user who was involved in incident
• Initiation certified by: an elected Managing Coordinator
• Closure: All available coordinators

• Initiation: any user plus two uninvolved users
• Assessment: Discussion for seven days
• Closed by: any uninvolved user initially, and later a crat
• Closure criteria: Consensus to remove / supermajority of >65% to remove

• Initiation: 10 established editors within 3 days
• Certification: Any Arb, Clerk, or Crat
• Assessment: poll and discussion on talk for seven days
• Closed by: Crat or multiple Crats
• Closure criteria:

• "Consensus of Community"
• Consider rationals, discussion, sockpuppetry, canvassing
• Quorum of more than 100 participants

• Initiation: 100 established users
• Certification by: Crat
• Assessment: RFA
• Closed by: Crat
• Closure: By Crat as RFA, only easier to succeed.

• Initiated by any user in good standing
• Assessment: RFA
• Closure: By Crat as RFA

• Initiation: Admin Conduct RFC
• Certification: Majority of Crats vote on whether reconfirmation needed
• Assessment: RFA
• Closure: By Crat as RFA, only easier to succeed.

• Initiation: Any admin
• Assessment: RFA
• Closure: Crat, as RFA

• Initiation: AdminRFC that results in community consensus for RFA
• Certification: Uninvolved admin
• Assessment: RFA
• Closure: Crat, as RFA

• Initiation:

• 30 signatures
• Including at least 5 admins
• Signatures expire after 7 days

• Certification: Any uninvolved admin, arb, clerk, or crat
• Assessment: RFA
• Closure: by 'Crat as RFA, only easier to succeed.

• Borderline: 50%
• Success: 65%

• Failed RFAs can request Arbcom restore adminship.