User:TenOfAllTrades/Policy reform treadmill

The Policy Reform Treadmill

or

Why the Cabal Killed Your Proposal

Who is the Reformer?

The Reformer is an experienced Wikipedian. He will almost always have accumulated thousands of edits over many months of contributions. He will probably be recognized as a regular (if not necessarily frequent) participant in discussions on the Administrator's Noticeboard and its subpages, and has probably offered at least one or two statements at Requests for Arbitration (though not necessarily as a party). Sometimes he is a denizen of the Requests for Adminship process and its talk page.

The Reformer will have almost always witnessed (what he perceives as) a recent, grave miscarriage of justice in some Wikipedia process. This miscarriage will involve the (in)action of administrators (usually), Arbitrators (sometimes), or Bureaucrats (occasionally). The situation may involve the Reformer directly as a party, it may affect a friend or close colleague of the Reformer, it may involve parties (especially administrators) with whom the Reformer has had past conflicts, or it may simply be an area where the Reformer's sense of justice has been offended. In any event, the Reformer will feel that Something must be Done.

The Reformer's experience

Clearly, the System is badly flawed. Existing policies don't adequately acknowledge the problems, let alone offer solutions. Only a substantial Reform can bring about the much-needed return of fairness and justice to Wikipedia. Incremental change would be worse than useless, deceiving the masses into believing that their concerns were heard.

The Reformer ponders. He sees the way forward to a shining new Wikipedia. Quickly, he drafts a policy proposal. It might describe a new, faster way to remove adminship, or a new body which can critique or overturn the ArbCom's actions. He knows that he alone cannot bring about change, so he sends some cautiously-worded invitations to like-minded editors, encouraging them to tinker with his – still in userspace – draft proposal.

The Reformer's friends and allies congratulate him on his wisdom, and this small working group rapidly hammers out a working sketch of the new policy. They work well together; disputes are resolved quickly and informally; open, calm, cool-headed communication is the order of the day. Progress is swift. All agree that the Reform is urgently needed, and the document takes shape over a few days — a few weeks, at the outside.

Proud of their accomplishments, the Reformer and his associates take their Proposal to the community. More often than not, this takes the form of a post to the Village Pump soliciting input. (The Reformer has learnt from past, bitter experience that demanding a straight up-and-down vote at this point would be futile; the community demands its say.) A handful of naysayers flatly reject the Proposal on the Village Pump itself, but their criticisms are quickly blunted by reminders that the Proposal is, after all, still in draft form and open to revision.

For two or three days, a torrent of activity floods the Proposal's talk page. The comments slow to a trickle as the Proposal notice moves up the Village Pump page and fades into the archives. Many editors make one or two comments, emphasizing one or two issues or criticisms, and then they don't return. A handful of editors stay a bit longer. Some are enthusiastic, while others express deep misgivings. The Reformer and his associates offer rebuttals to the criticisms; many times the critics don't respond further, as the Reformer has clearly answered their concerns.

Perhaps one or two critics remain active on the talk page, repeating, rephrasing, restating, and expanding their criticisms if they are unsatisfied by the Reformer's responses. Still, the Reformer is satisfied. Several editors have now had a chance to voice opinions on his proposal. Most have responded positively, and many of the critics have – by their silence – implicitly accepted the Reformer's rebuttals. If a small minority of critics can't be satisfied, then so be it — there will always be cronies of the current administration who fear any attempt at reform no matter how well-planned. After a couple of weeks pass, discussion fades to nearly nothing on the Proposal's talk page, and the draft is deemed complete.

The Reformer calls for a vote on the new, finalized Proposal. Announcements are posted at the Village Pump, at the administrator's noticeboard, at Template:Cent. Early returns are very positive; support is near-unanimous over the first dozen or two votes and the Reformer expects the proposal to pass easily. But wait — a day or two passes, and the picture changes drastically. Out of nowhere, an overwhelming wave of negative votes and comments rolls in. As the numbers mount, it becomes painfully clear that the community does not support the Reformer. The Proposal is defeated.

Everything was going smoothly, but a sudden, massive influx of naysayers arrived to crush the desperately-needed, all-but-implemented Proposal. What happened? What possible explanation could there be?

The Reformer can reach but one conclusion. The ossified, rigid, bloated power structures of Wikipedia have once again acted to evade reform. Honest, hardworking editors will one day rise up and smite their oppressors, but – alas – today will not be that day.

The Wet Blanket's perspective

The Wet Blanket is stolid, even dour. He is an editor of long standing, as experienced as the Reformer, and probably has a sysop bit. He has seen this process many times before, and wishes that the Reformer would learn from past mistakes. His view of the process goes something like this.

Likely naysayers aren't invited to participate in original policy draft development. This is not surprising, nor is it necessarily undesirable. There are some editors who will likely reject the vast majority of such proposals out of hand, and their involvement in the early drafting process may be more hindrance than help. Personal and editorial conflicts with the proposal author(s) are likely to interfere with development of the embryonic proposal. Nevertheless, the Reformer forgets the existence of these other editors at his peril. Assessing the likely acceptability of a proposal on the basis of input from a small group of (often discontented) editors is apt to be misleading at best, and utterly futile at worst.

At the next stage – usually a public request for comment at the Village Pump or some other venue – a new proposal faces its first real test of community faith. In principle, it is at this stage that a proposal can take its first real steps towards wider acceptance. In practice, this is the point where most proposals cement their failure — whether anyone notices at the time or not.

Faced with a sudden influx of new editors who are largely unfamiliar with the proposal or its development history, the Reformer faces a mix of support, suggestions, criticism, and disapproval. Unfortunately, a proposal's more emotionally-invested supporters will tend to discourage any contribution from critics. In some cases, a proposal will flame out at this point. In more unfortunate cases, the proposal will appear to survive, as criticisms are ignored or dismissed until most critics leave the talk page. The Reformer will feel that the proposal has survived its challenges; the Wet Blankets just give up.

As proposal development proceeds, there will be a continued absence of clarity about the aims and goals of the process. Supporters feel that the need is obvious, and require no further explanation, evidence, or analysis. Little or no evidence is provided supporting the need for the proposed changes, beyond the bare assertion that such a need exists. Requests by the occasional surviving Wet Blanket for specific details will be shrugged off; the Wet Blanket will be accused of attempting to subvert and disrupt the process by asking divisive questions.

A vote is eventually called. Sometimes, there will be multiple polls with too many bells, whistles, and options. Other times there are significant gaps in the details of the proposed policy. The rest of the time, the Proposal just doesn't meet the community's standards and needs; often flaws pointed out weeks or months earlier by the Wet Blanket and other critics remain in the final product.

The community, unpersuaded by the arguments, troubled by a lack of detail, or concerned about the potential for abuse, votes resoundingly to reject the proposal.

The Wet Blanket observes that the correct outcome has been reached, and the community has been protected from what would be disruptive and couterproductive policy. Nevertheless, the Wet Blanket resigns himself to seeing another damn Proposal a few months down the road, with the same damn problems as the last dozen.

Philosophical notes and observations

• We tend to develop policy on a descriptive rather than prescriptive basis. We prefer to endorse ideas that have been tested and found viable. Similarly, evolutionary changes are generally much easier to sell than revolutionary ones.

• Most editors, at any given time, aren't particularly unhappy. The bulk of the community often perceives – sometimes fairly, sometimes not – the firebrand Reformer as driven by personal vendettas or a sense of sour grapes.

• Most of us don't like 'processes', and would prefer to get on with writing an encyclopedia.

• We are cynical about additional layers of authority, and creating an infinitely-nested layer of watchers who watch the watchers who watch the watchers seems an exercise in futility and diminishing returns.

• Silence implies consent, except when it doesn't.

Getting off the treadmill

I don't know. Does anyone want to offer a suitable Proposal to Reform the Policy Reform Process? Hm....

See also

• Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist