User:Cenarium/Administrative Appointments Commission/Version 1

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 seek a permanent term to the community, in a consensus based process, no longer requiring reappointment by the commission. The power of removal of adminship remains vested in the arbitration committee outside biannual reappointments for non-permanent administrators. Administrators appointed through the previous WP:RFA system are unaffected.

Composition of the Commission
The commission would be convened every six month and disbanded when its work is done (about three months). It would be composed of nine members, four of them administrators, four of them non-administrators, and one bureaucrat. 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 two steps, first by specifying its mandate, and second by electing it :
 * 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 RFC. The work of the commission would proceed as follows :
 * Phase 1 ( ~ 1 week) : discussion of the mandate as set in the RFC, establishment of rules and procedures, exchange of general views between members
 * Phase 2 ( ~ 1 month) : search for candidates (candidates may nominate themselves, be nominated by others, or the commission may contact them directly) and contact with current term administrators on whether they seek reappointment
 * Phase 3 ( ~ 1 week) : selection of suitable candidates for appointment or reappointment (those who are clearly unsuitable or have withdrawn after discussing are not retained) and announcement of those
 * Phase 4 ( ~ 1 month) : invitation to provide feedback on the candidates to the commission privately (including feedback on previous terms for those seeking reappointment), the commission may ask questions or raise issues with the candidates
 * Phase 5 ( ~ 1 week) : selection of successful candidatures on merit, announcement of newly appointed and reappointed administrators.

The commission should thus be able to complete its mandate within three months, after which it is disbanded. The commission has no other mandate or responsibility. The reasons for approving or declining a (re)appointment are not made public by the commission, unless the candidate requests it. 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.

To appoint a new administrator, a majority of the commission must be in favor, with members basing their opinion on the general criteria set forth in the RFC by the community. For current term administrators, the default position is to reappoint them, and a majority of the commission must be against reappointment to reject it, with members basing their opinion on the general criteria set forth in the RFC by the community.

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 request permanent adminship to the community, no longer requiring reappointment by the commission. The process would be consensus based and the closure up to a bureaucrat. 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. If the community declines the request, this does not affect the current term of the administrator.

Requests for permanent adminship would only be open for the periods between each commission.

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 RFC, 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 : RFC for upcoming AAC
 * 2) February : AAC Election
 * 3) March - April : AAC work
 * 4) May : Admins (re)appointed
 * 5) June - August : RFPA open
 * 6) July : RFC for upcoming AAC
 * 7) August : AAC Election
 * 8) September - October : AAC work
 * 9) November : Admins (re)appointed
 * 10) December - February : RFPA open.

Questions and Answers

 * Why should appointments and reappointments be made every six months ?
 * It is easier to decide appointments from a pool of candidates at one time than to decide whether or not to appoint candidates one by one as they come along.
 * It also allows to make the appointments and reappointments at the same time in sync with term duration.
 * The appointment process would take about three months, so once every six months seems like a good compromise.


 * Why not a permanent commission ?
 * It is not needed, since (re)appointments are made every six months.
 * 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.
 * It allows greater and more frequent community input in each commission's work.


 * Why not extend the mandate of the commission to review administrative actions, or allow them to remove adminship outside reappointments decisions ?
 * The regular reappointment of non-permanent administrators by the commission in itself would be a strong deterrent to misconduct.
 * 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.
 * It would make the commission much more controversial than necessary, to the point that this could cripple its functioning and threaten its core mandate.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Regardless, this may still be rediscussed after the commission has been established and worked for a while.


 * Wouldn't the requirement to be reappointed every six months be off-putting to candidates ?
 * Unless serious or repeated substantial issues arose during the previous term, the commission would non-controversially reappoint administrators.
 * This would be totally unlike a RFA-like reconfirmation process, which for its part would certainly be off-putting.
 * After two reappointments, the administrator can ask for permanent adminship to the community, making this requirement disappear.
 * This requirement reassures users afraid of granting the tools 'for ever' to someone who has never been an admin, providing a form of trial.
 * This is a necessary condition for a system with less barriers to entry than the current RFA system, in light of the previous point.


 * Why using a commission instead of community consensus ?
 * The current RFA system has become very off-putting to candidates. There is a general community consensus that a new system would be appreciable.
 * Numerous alternatives using community consensus have been proposed and rejected, and would likely be still off-putting to candidates.
 * 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.
 * 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 RFC, and the election would exclude candidates rejecting this standard.
 * Permanent adminship status would require community consensus in any case.


 * It is not just the fault of RFA, isn't the job itself unappealing ?
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.