User:Imzadi1979/RfA reform ideas

I currently believe that the current RfA/RfB process needs to be replaced, but I think a more radical solution is in order.

My take on the situation
If we look at the abilities of both administrators and bureaucrats as a group, they perform two basic functions.
 * 1) They curate the content our readers and fellow editors see and edit.
 * 2) *They can delete restore pages or revisions of pages. They can also restore deleted content.
 * 3) *They can protect pages from editing/moving/etc, and edit/move/etc those pages which are protected. They can also remove the various forms of protection from pages.
 * 4) *They deal with requests related to deletion or protection.
 * 5) *They (theoretically) can handle editing related to site-wide configurations and coding.
 * 6) They handle HR- or personnel-level matters related to our editors.
 * 7) *They can grant or revoke user rights. Bureaucrats can grant or revoke the admin right as well as the bot flag, and admins can grant or revoke other rights like reviewer, auto-patroller, or mass-message sender.
 * 8) *They can block accounts from editing, and restore the ability to edit.
 * 9) *They can edit the .js and .css pages connected to individual accounts to remove the ability to use scripts.

Both of these basic functions share one ability in common: the ability to assess consensus when a process (AfD, RfA, etc) requires it. At the very least, these basic functions require someone to assess if a request by an editor meets simple criteria to grant (PROD/CSD, most lower-level permissions).

To gain the ability to curate content on a more advanced level, an editor would currently need to demonstrate aptitude in dealing with personnel matters. The reverse is also true: to gain the ability to handle the personnel matters, an editor would need to demonstrate aptitude in content curation. If we can lower the standards necessary to gain tools to qualities that actually impact the ability to use those tools, I think many potentially interested editors will be apt to apply for more advanced permissions.

A lot has also been said about the "hellish nature" of the current RfA process. I think if we decoupled personnel decisions from content curation, and overhauled the process to reflect that decoupling, the tone could be improved.

Proposal
The tools assigned to the administrator and bureaucrat roles are reshuffled, and the user rights are renamed.

Curator
The current administrator user right becomes the curator right, and it is restructured to take on the page curation functions only. Curators would gain the ability to handle the various tasks in the bullet points under number 1 above, except the last item. The curator right would also have the filer-mover and template-editor abilities bundled into it, just as they are bundled into the administrator right now.

Manager
Some of the tools and responsibilities assigned to the current administrator and bureaucrat roles are reassigned to a new manager user right. These users would grant and revoke permissions to other editor accounts, block or unblock accounts, and set bot flags. They would also oversee and close nominations or requests for permissions. The ability to edit the .js and .css pages that are linked to other user accounts would be restricted to the manager user right. To aid in any dispute resolution, they would be granted the ability to view deleted content.

Managers would be nominated at a subsection of WP:RFPERM. Once approved, another manager or a steward could grant the user right.

Interface-editor
Just as we have spun out file-mover and template-editor user rights, we should spin out a dedicated user right to allow editors the ability to edit in the MediaWiki: filespace. Requests for this permission would be handled by managers just as requests for file-mover are handed by administrators now. This right would be available to curators and managers on an individual basis.

Nominations
Because both user rights require the ability to see deleted content, nominations would be subject to community support to comply with WMF requirements. Nominations should remain open for at least a week for discussion. A better approach may be to use a two-stage process. During the first week, comments about the nominee are allowed, and during the second week, the forum is opened to declarations of support or opposition. WP:FAR takes a similar approach. A goal of the discussion should be to allow the community to both assess and mentor the nominee. We should want help editors with potential grow into the role

We need specific minimum criteria for editors who wish to request the permissions. At a bare minimum, we need a minimum number of edits and tenure. Because the two toolsets will be segregated based on topic areas somewhat, we may want to apply a minimum percentage of edits to specific namespaces.

Applicants for the new curator and manager rights should be advertised to the community. At a minimum, I would suggest that we list the current applicants' names at the bottom of the WP:CENT box. This should look similar to how recent deaths are listed at the bottom of WP:ITN on the Main Page. Additionally, we could have a running list that appears as a site notice at the top of watch lists. The idea is to solicit community opinion so that these more advanced permissions are not discussed only by a small minority of editors.

Existing managers would be expected to cultivate an atmosphere of civil discussion. Since personnel matters are within the responsibilities of their role, mediating disputes and

Removal
All user rights are subject to revocation for abuse. If a curator or manager abuses the privileges accorded either of those user rights, those privileges may be revoked through a request for removal. Additionally, if a curator or manager has lost the confidence of the community, even without a specific action considered abuse, an editor can initiate an RfR. The RfR will have the following steps:
 * 1) An editor makes the RfR on the Managers Noticeboard or another specified forum.
 * 2) The request is seconded by a second editor.
 * 3) Once a neutral manager certifies the request, the request is opened to community discussion using the same process as used for an initial request for permission. During the discussion period, the curator/manager that is the subject of the RfR should refrain from using the tools at issue.
 * 4) At the end of the specified period, neutral managers close the discussion and take the appropriate action.
 * 5) If the closing managers cannot determine consensus, they may send the RfR to the Arbitration Committee.

The community would also be free to submit the issue to the Arbitration Committee as part of a request for arbitration. In an emergency situation, any manager or ArbCom member may revoke the permission(s) unilaterally, but such a revocation should be submitted through the RfR or RfAr process for review.

As with current policy, inactive curators or managers would lose the appropriate user right, and they could have the tools restored upon request.

Editors who abuse the RfR process can be subject to a topic ban or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by a manager or managers, by the Arbitration Committee, or by the community.

Implementation
All current bureaucrats would become both managers and curators after because they were already given all of those tools through the RfA and RfB processes. If a current bureaucrat opts during the transition not to receive the curator right with its associated tools, he or she would need to request the right in the future.

All current administrators would become curators only. They could not automatically managers because they have not been approved by a community process to hold the extra permissions from the current bureaucrat toolset. Curators would be free to request the manager user right.

The current functions of WP:AN. and its subforums like WP:ANI, would be transferred to a Managers Noticeboard. The various policies and guidelines would be amended as necessary. These changes would be phased in over the course of 30 days.

My reasoning
WMF restricts access to deleted content, so we need some community process to vet nominees, and we need some standards. We need a process that allows us to hold rogue admins accountable. We also need some form of due process that protects admins from disgruntled editors. Without a process that allows these permissions to be revoked, the community has held nominees to high standards, making the process to request the permissions a gauntlet to be run, or a hell week to be endured. In reality, the tools shouldn't be as big of a deal to obtain and use. They should be revoked easily enough, but not too easily.

As mentioned above, the tools can be split into two groupings: ones that protect and advance the content, and ones that protect and advance the community of people. I personally don't feel a desire to deal with the personnel side of adminship, but there are times when the curation side would be handy to me. I can foresee that there are those who would feel the reverse. Right now, they're bundled into one "winner takes all" package. We've started to unbundle a few things: file mover and template editor have shown that we can allow editors to hold parts of the admin toolkit. At the same time, the 'crat toolkit is losing one of its key functions. Now that account rename requests are being handled globally, that leaves the 'crats with closing RfAs/RfBs and setting bot flags.