User:Melody Concerto/sandbox/about/misc/opinions/RfA

In my meanderings about the wiki I've heard much talk about the RfA process. Not to cherrypick any; but my thoughts on the matter are simple. An RfA need not be a BIG DEAL. Sure; we want to be careful about who gets the mop. That's absolutely acceptable, within reason.

But oftentimes, I see even well reasoned essays stack hefty quantities of requirements by statistics; usually minimum edits or completions of tasks in various scenarios and such. I often then see the selfsame editors of those essays then whirl about nowadays and complain that we are severely or sorely lacking in Admin count...or that we're losing admins faster than we can mint new ones; they bemoan this fact each time someone gets desysopped. To which I always reply "Oh geez; I'd gladly replenish your lost admin and lend an occasional hand...if it weren't so darn hard to get through an RfA!"

Depending on their stance, they might get huffy, and go on to explain on how it's not so hard to survive an RfA; usually these are seasoned sysops with thousands of edits and may have even had the benefit of the earlier age, where an RfA was not so bad as it is now. If they don't get huffy, they are somewhat offended and eye me with suspicion, "is she collecting hats"?, they may ask themselves mentally with caution...which honestly couldn't be further from the truth. Most editors like myself prefer not to need to ask for the mop because we'd rather not be plagued by the politicking that often comes with the mop and it's attendant duties.

It isn't as if we wouldn't be as passionate as your modern sysops are now if we were given the bits. No, I'm sure if you picked anyone with a permission set similar to ours; you'd probably find many of us in fact DO want to help the wiki a bit; whenever we have the time, and energy.

Unfortunately for editors like us who are considered 'half-baked' by our more tireless peers; we have a slight problem. Our contributions are always relegated to being "minor" or "not worthy" of consideration. While that should not, and often does not stop us from editing more and becoming one of the hard workers; many of us are simply real people with real lives and real needs that must be attended to with more attention.

It's sometimes a bit frustrating that one can't contribute more than they do. But it can be condescending when they're told they're not "good enough" when they're commenting merely on the state of the wiki as experienced editors themselves. If there weren't so many significant permissions wrapped up in the sysop bit; maybe we might not pretend they were as powerful. That always makes me wonder about RfAs; are they truly as rational and based on facts as they can be, or are they basically popularity contests now, with only the busiest and well liked of bees getting the honey?

You actually don't really see any WikiElves or WikiGnomes getting any kind of trust like that all that often. It raises questions about the system when all you see are many essays written on "how to pass an RfA" often including some tiresome list of minimum numbers of actions. Why our Admin candidates need to be well versed in all aspects of the bits they have, if they can be trusted to have restraint or ask a colleague if they're not well versed in the tool they're interested in using, is not quite understood by all editors. Why we don't ultimately have a group or role that sits below the full sysop with only a fraction of the tools is also a bit of a mystery; but that's probably a better topic for a different essay...assuming that anyone wants to read about it. The initial editor of this essay freely acknowledges that she could stand to learn a bit more about things; but has been around fully long enough to know that she isn't a new editor either.

There are probably more essays than any number of fingers a human might possess that whistle the tune of having a certain quantity of GA or FAs to even be considered! Why we've let such an absurdly onerous requirement creep into our qualifications for a good Administrator is yet another social mystery about the wiki that might yet merit exploration in other essays. But it is, make no mistake, a very onerous requirement. Others yet may agree with this; and yet still insist, very stubbornly, that an Administrator be someone who has authored an article or two at least...as if that weren't onerous either, and, as if there aren't people with differing skill sets that make them less practical as an actual editor, but, quite well suited to the kinds of clerking and rationality that an Administrator is often expected to be capable of on Wikipedia.

Amusingly even; these people may base their entire judgement upon the output of a toolserver. They put some arbitrary weight on each namespace in the wiki and "grade" you like a teacher, deciding if you've "given enough" to the project to merit a change in permissions that may well lead to you being an even more productive editor! They may even tally up your "tool-assisted" edits and demerit you for them, if they don't outright refuse to count them at all! They don't assess your talk page or your abilities. They don't assess how you interact with others; they just count stats before voting. Ugh. That's easy to game if someone was really fully malicious and planning to go full on rogue admin on us all.

Maybe they don't do that; but they still use the statistical tools to figure out how large your edits are; and discount you because you don't have an average byte change difference above some arbitrary limit. Perhaps they argue, that "you don't work hard enough for permissions", if you don't meet those requirements; as if those qualifications were any less game-able or questionable as anything else.

Maybe they do make an effort to "know the person" behind the edits; but then forget "we're all human" because they're the one that you ask a question for the 451st time because you know them and you know they'll probably know. In being a close friend; they've probably somehow forgotten how to make sure the information sticks...or happen to be just someone you feel comfortable sharing your questions with.

Why we have an essay that states simply that "(Un)Blocks are Cheap", and then don't have anything close to a similar ethos when it comes to granting sysop or desysopping someone who might be a poor fit is a little odd. Perhaps it's because we've placed all our eggs into that basket, and don't want anyone tipping it over. Maybe if we lowered the stakes a little bit and had a period of time where the applicant would only get a Wikitrout for their mistakes and not cause actual damage; we could ensure that our admin candidates were not only well-trained, but also have had the benefit of time to assess their operations styles and determine if they could be an asset to the wiki or a detriment.

That at least seems on the surface to be a good idea; but in rational tradition, it would only be fair enough to think about if it can go wrong. When our humor space communicates more on how to be (or not be) a good admin than our actual guides on how we expect our admins to behave; one might think that might merit a bit of discussion and translation of the reality from the "humorous" literature into something a little more clear and understandable. We regularly encourage editors to "Be Bold!" and "Ignore the rules if they're in the way!"...but on the other hand, doing either of those while being wrong is often treated as a very dire "Oh my, You pressed the button didn't you?" situation, complete with explosive fallout for the editor. With regards to RfAs you don't often see boldness in nominees or any hint of IAR-ness to get someone who would probably otherwise pose no threat to the Wiki itself and be a help even if they're hilariously "underqualified" to hold full bits.

We don't have any sort of probationary or half-sysop status. We should probably revisit that decision if you ask me...especially if people are going to moan about the backlogs and shortage of full Admins.