User:Cenarium/Administrative Appointments Commission

The Administrative Appointments Commission is a proposed commission that would be part of a new system for appointing administrators that is intended to replace WP:RFA. The commission, convened every six month by the community, would appoint new administrators for a term of six months and reappoint, or decline to reappoint, previously appointed administrators. After at least two successive reappointments (so a term of 12 months), an administrator may be recommended and nominated by the commission for a permanent term to the community, which would decide in a consensus based process. The power of removal of adminship remains vested in the arbitration committee outside biannual reappointments. Administrators appointed through the previous WP:RFA system are unaffected.

Composition of the Commission
The commission would be convened every six month, function for a period of four months, and disband. It would be composed of an equal number of administrators and non-administrators, and of one bureaucrat as commission coordinator. The precise number could be required to be between seven and fifteen members, subject to the parity between admins and non-admins, and with the actual number depending on the results of the election. The bureaucrat would act as commission coordinator, representative to the community, would vote only to break a tie, and assign or remove the administrator rights as a result of the commission's decisions. The community would elect both the non-administrator members and the administrator members. The bureaucrat member would be appointed by the arbitration committee.

The community would convene a new commission every six months in one or two steps, first by specifying its mandate, or by tacit reconduction of its previous mandate, and second by electing it :
 * Optional RFC ( ~ 1 month) : Editors express their views on the current needs in terms of administrators, the understaffed areas, the criteria for (re)appointments, provide feedback on the previous commission and advise for the next commission. The RFC doesn't discuss individual administrator issues, only general issues.
 * Election ( ~ 1 month) : Commission members are elected, editors can ask public questions to candidates (including on specific administrator issues), voting is private as with ArbCom elections.

If necessary due to exceptional circumstances, the commission may remove one of its member by a supermajority vote. Reserve members are also selected during the election (non-admins and admins in equal numbers) in case of resignation or removal. If the bureaucrat coordinating member resigns or is removed, ArbCom appoints another. Bureaucrats may present themselves for the election as admins, but not as coordinating member.

Functioning of the Commission
Once elected, the mandate of the commission is to appoint and reappoint administrators in the manner specified by the community in the previous RFCs. The commission would begin by discussing for about one week its mandate as set in the RFCs and establish the rules and procedures. It would then announce the administrators to reappoint, seek feedback, and invite new candidates to come forward. For about three months, the commission would search for candidates, who may nominate themselves, be nominated by others, or be contacted directly by the commission. The commission would validate each candidacy by majority vote (excluding those who are clearly unsuitable), and announce each candidacy one at a time, inviting to provide feedback privately. The commission may ask questions or raise issues with the candidates by email, based on the feedback received. After a minimum of three weeks of consideration, the commission may vote on the candidacy based on merit and community standards as established in the RFCs. If the candidacy is successful, the candidate is informed, an announcement is made and the rights are granted. If the candidacy is unsuccessful, the commission may decide to give another chance to the candidate if it is felt that the issues can be addressed. Candidacies which end up unsuccessful are not announced publicly, unless specifically requested by the candidate, who can also announce a withdrawal. Nominations remain open until three weeks before the end of the commission.

After three weeks, in parallel to vetting new candidates for adminship, the commission would determine which current administrators should be recommended for permanent status to the community. The commission would contact each administrator that it wishes to recommend, and if they agree, nominate them at requests for permanent adminship. In the last week, the commission should vote on reappointments (except for those who have been granted permanent status by the community), with a majority against required to refuse reappointment, based on the general criteria set forth in the RFCs by the community. The reasons for approving or declining a (re)appointment are not made public by the commission, unless the candidate requests it.

The commission should thus be able to complete its mandate in four months, after which it is disbanded. The commission has no other mandate or responsibility. The Commission would have at its disposal a mailing list where members can discuss privately, with candidates, or others providing feedback. The list is private so that members can have a place to discuss in a calm and collegial atmosphere, and where opinions can be given freely. But it is not appropriate for discussing private user information, and only public information may be provided as feedback to the commission. Being a member of the commission does not grant any administrative responsibility on Wikipedia and as such, non-administrator members would not be granted adminship.

Observers may be designated by the community. They would have access to the commission's mailing list, could provide feedback on the proceedings but not on candidates, and would report their observations to the community when the commission is disbanded.

Requests For Permanent Adminship
Once an administrator has been reappointed at least twice successively by the commission, so after a continuous term of 12 months minimum, the administrator may be nominated by the commission for permanent adminship to the community, no longer requiring reappointment. The process would be consensus based and the closure up to a bureaucrat (or several, if consensus is unclear, as done with RFAs). This possibility seems necessary to avoid a constantly increasing workload for the successive commissions. The specifics are not detailed, since we would have a year to agree on them in any case. It may be similar to the current RFA process, but it would be fundamentally different in the sense that editors could base their assessments on at least one year of service, and the nominations would be made by a commission. If the community declines the request, this does not affect the current term of the administrator.

Removal of permanent status
The Arbitration Committee may remove the permanent status of an administrator as a sanction. It would be a less strict alternative than a straight removal of adminship, since the user would remain an administrator until the next commission appointments, and could be imposed more liberally. Whether the admin would be reappointed or not would depend on community standards established in the RFCs, on the elected commission, and on community input during the proceedings.

Schedule
This is an example of schedule : AAC elections must not coincide with ArbCom elections (December).
 * 1) January : Optional RFC for upcoming AAC
 * 2) February : AAC Election
 * 3) March - June : AAC work
 * 4) July : Optional RFC for upcoming AAC
 * 5) August : AAC Election
 * 6) September - December : AAC work

Questions and Answers

 * 1) Why not a permanent commission ? Why six months terms for admins ?
 * 2) *It allows to concentrate the work of the commission on two periods of four months each year, while the four other months are used for optional RFCs and elections.
 * 3) *It is known, from experience with ArbCom, that people would be more willing to apply for short term positions, as opposed to longer term positions due to the greater commitment implied. This will thus provide us with a greater pool of candidates for the commission to choose from.
 * 4) *It allows greater and more frequent community input in each commission's work.
 * 5) *The community repeatedly rejected the use of a committee for granting adminship on a permanent basis, a commission appointing admins for six months term would be more acceptable. Permanent adminship status would require community consensus in any case.
 * 6) Why using a commission instead of community consensus ?
 * 7) *The current RFA system has become daunting to candidates. There is a general community consensus that a new system would be appreciable.
 * 8) *Numerous alternatives using community consensus have been proposed and rejected, most of the time because they would have problems similar to RFA.
 * 9) *Using a commission means that the discussion can be held at a relaxed pace in a calm environment, with less public pressure being put on the candidates.
 * 10) *Efforts have been made to ensure that the commission follows as closely as possible the community's general consensus when appointing and reappointing administrators. Their mandate would be clearly specified by the community in the RFCs, and the election would exclude candidates rejecting this standard.
 * 11) Wouldn't the requirement to be reappointed every six months be off-putting to candidates ?
 * 12) *Unless serious or repeated substantial issues arose during the previous term, the commission would non-controversially reappoint administrators.
 * 13) *Since the reappointment is made by a commission, this would be totally unlike a community based reconfirmation process, which for its part would certainly be intensive and stressful, so off-putting to candidates. Such proposals of term-limited adminship have been repeatedly rejected by the community due to this concern, but it does not apply to this proposal.
 * 14) *After two reappointments, the administrator can be nominated by the commission for permanent adminship to the community, making this requirement disappear.
 * 15) *This requirement reassures users afraid of granting the tools 'for ever' to someone who has never been an admin, providing a form of trial.
 * 16) *This is a necessary condition for a system with less barriers to entry than the current RFA system, in light of the previous point.
 * 17) *In addition, removal of adminship before the end of term would be subject to the same standards as removal of adminship from a permanent term administrator. At the moment, it is up to the Arbitration Committee.
 * 18) It is not just the fault of RFA, isn't the job itself unappealing ?
 * 19) *It depends highly on the area where the administrator works. Admins working in uncontroversial areas can see very little change compared to their pre-adminship status. But it can indeed be very tough in certain areas, and those areas are often where admins are lacking, though backlogs in uncontroversial areas are also frequent; in the end it is up to each admin to decide where they work.
 * 20) *A significant source of controversy and pressure put on admins arise from the complaints that it is too difficult to remove adminship. This pushes users to require higher and higher standards for promotion at RFA, most notably evidence that they can work well everywhere. Providing this new entry point for adminship will ensure that candidates desiring to work in only some specific areas can become administrators, on somewhat of a trial basis at first due to the reappointments.
 * 21) *By reducing the controversy surrounding the status and providing an opportunity to acquire adminship without having to prove excellency in all areas, the job should become more appealing.
 * 22) Why not extend the mandate of the commission to review administrative actions, or allow them to remove adminship outside reappointments decisions ?
 * 23) *The regular reappointment of non-permanent administrators by the commission in itself would be a strong deterrent to misconduct.
 * 24) *ArbCom already has this responsibility, extending it to this commission would create conflicts, and making this exclusive to the commission would not necessarily result in a more effective process.
 * 25) *It would make the commission much more controversial than necessary, to the point that this could cripple its functioning and threaten its core mandate.
 * 26) *In some situations, an informed decision may require access to sensitive user information, which would require that members be identified to the Wikimedia foundation. It would likely exclude non-administrator members due to the WMF stance on viewing deleted material, and would severely limit the attractiveness of the position even to administrators.
 * 27) *The possibility afforded to ArbCom to sanction an administrator by removing its permanent status provides a form of reconfirmation. This would be a further step to appease the underlying concern of administrator accountability.
 * 28) *Regardless, this may still be rediscussed after the commission has been established and worked for a while.
 * 29) Isn't there a risk that admins prefer being reappointed again and again, as opposed to passing the community based requests for permanent adminship ?
 * 30) *This is a concern, since this would result in a continually increasing number of reappointments to consider. However, there are several incitations for trying RFPA.
 * 31) *The commission would make the recommendation and write the nomination for the candidate (with other co-noms possible), giving a solid basis to the request.
 * 32) *The community would base its decision on the term of the administrator, meaning the available evidence would be more solid, the criteria would be more straightforward and easier to evaluate, there would be less extrapolation and prediction debates.
 * 33) *Candidates active in controversial areas would undoubtedly receive oppositions due to their work there, which may or may not be justified, in the end it would be up to the community to establish criteria by general consensus and to bureaucrats to close based on those.
 * 34) *For admins with a good track record and limited activity in controversial areas, RFPA would be largely uncontroversial and easy to pass. So the perspective of permanent status, meaning no longer be bothered by reappointments, would be attractive.
 * 35) *For admins with a good track record but substantial activity in controversial areas, RFPA would likely be controversial and may, or may not, prove hard to pass. However, failing RFPA does not affect the current term or perspectives of an admin.
 * 36) *It would be frown upon to use the regular reappointments as a permanent way for admins to increase their accountability purely based on principle. The increased accountability should exist for all admins, not just for those who would like that on principle, doing so would needlessly increase each commission's workload.
 * 37) *If it turns out to be a problem nonetheless, the community may decide to use another system for granting permanent admniship, such as a private vote, or if necessary grant permanent status to all admins with a long enough term (for example, three years).
 * 38) Wouldn't administrators on a permanent term have free rein ?
 * No, since they would be subject to sanctions by ArbCom, including straight removal of adminship, or the lesser alternative of removal of permanent status, which would force the administrator to be reappointed in a form of reconfirmation. The second alternative could be used more liberally by ArbCom, if required to increase administrator accountability.