"==Author's comments==

I posted the following comments on the userpage, but moved them now to this talk page with minor edits:

The following changes are suggested:

 Mark ""Requests for Adminship"" as historical, and open the new process, ""Sysop Applications.""
 Replace the standard three RFA questions with the six questions shown below.  
 Question 3 - how the applicant intends to use the sysop tools - is similar to old question 1. 
 Question 4, asking for the applicant's article writing experience, is based on old Question 2. 
 I have removed old question 3 about conflicts with other users.
 Questions 1 and 2 are added to establish minimum criteria.  Only one user (Lustiger.seth) who failed these criteria has become a sysop in the last several years.  Having these criteria on the application should eliminate the need for WP:NOTNOW closes to premature RFAs.
 Questions 5 and 6 are added to establish the candidate's character for honesty.  Why this wasn't done years ago after the Archtransit scandal is hard for me to understand.  Disclosure of material negative information should be expected of all applicants.
 Remove the old system of voting ""support"", ""oppose"", or ""neutral"" with a reason in your vote.  Instead, vote ""support"" or ""oppose"" without giving a reason.  Then, if you choose to give a reason, you may comment in the ""Concerns"" section or on the talk page of the Application.
 This change will reduce the ""pile-on"" effect of oppose voting.  Normally, in old RFAs, support voters vote without saying much, whereas oppose voters write long comments.  The oppose votes are disorganized insofar as oppose vote number 13 may refer back to oppose votes number 2 and 6.  The cumulative effect of oppose votes with long reasons is to say ""we hate you.""  
 The new model removes this asymmetry.  You can still oppose, but you can't say more in your oppose vote than a supporter would say in her support vote.  The cumulative effect of bare support and oppose votes is ""some of us like you, and some don't.""  To the extent that reasons for opposing the candidate need to be explained, the voter can explain in the ""Concerns"" section.
 No ""neutral"" votes.  If you don't want to vote, nobody is forcing you.  Neutral votes are pointless.
 We can decide later what a passing score should be.  For now we can allow bureaucrats to use their discretion as they currently do.

The following features will be maintained from the old RFA process:
 Bureaucrats decide the outcome after a 7-day discussion.
 A nominator may praise the candidate.  That is probably the one positive aspect of old RFA that is worth preserving. 

  

"