User talk:Doc glasgow/provisional adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: for an alternative proposal, see Wikipedia:Trial adminship.

[edit] Initial thoughts

This is very similar to something I've been bouncing around in my head, except that it involved Category:Administrators open to recall rather than your 'crat/arbcom proposal, which (assuming the 'crats/ArbCom are okay with it) is a much better alternative. My concern is this.

User applies for provisional adminship, toes the line for however long, and is approved based on his/her actions, and then goes nuts. Having an unbureaucratic process to confirm them, but a possibly tedious one to remove them, seems...difficult to me. I haven't been able to figure out the answer to it, but it seems like the only hole in the theory in my mind, one which could hopefully be easily evaporated.

Also, for the sake of this process, I will offer myself as a test case to this process if we decide to hit the next level. I think I'm the type of editor this would benefit (although I'm rather reluctant to bother with the bit anyway) - one who's generally trusted by the community, but has enough strong opposition to never make it past RfA if he tried. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Without going into the 'recall' business, I'll just note that it has never reached anything approaching consensus. My problem personally is that it is open to open to becoming a partisan battleground or to trolls, and the the effort in having it would outweigh the benefits of riding ourselves of number of admins who we'd be better without. Anyway, if we reopen that debate, we'll have a philosophical discussion which will gather no consensus. I'd like to see if this idea could fly as it stands. (And, it may surprise you, but you'd have my tentative support on an RfA.) --Docg 13:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, that's why I hadn't proposed it as well - the "open to recall" would probably open the floodgates on any provisional candidate who crosses someone the wrong way, whichis not how it's intended or works with established administrators. Any thoughts on the removal portion, though, or is it designed to take a lot to remove one once s/he's passed the provisional period (which is an okay answer)? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

I like it but it's too instruction creepy. Also, I think that if the same 20 people that would oppose a user's RFA show up to oppose his/her provisional RFA, we're back where we started. In other words, I am having trouble convincing myself that anyone who would fail a normal RFA would pass a provisional one without objection. Take, for example, any of the RFAs that are currently below 70%.

How about this as an alternative:

  1. Have no separate process for provisional RFAs. Instead, allow bureaucrats to provisionally promote anyone at their discretion who has at least n support. (The value of n can be discussed.)
  2. By making the provisional promotion, this crat agrees to personally keep a check on the administrative actions of the provisional admin.
  3. Second RFA only if requested by multiple established users after a month, otherwise, the provisional tag gets removed automatically after two months.

This way, there's less instruction creep and the existing processes can be used with little modification. --BigDT 13:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That still envisages a community discussion and !vote prior to provisional status been given. That's precisely what I was trying to get away from.--Docg 13:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As regards removal, a consensus-building exercise could more easily replace a vote if we were debating what had happened rather than gazing deep into crystal bollocks and voting. TINC, so what sort of basic safeguards would be in place? Regarding BigDT's point about creep, a process which is trying out plausible candidates, and then deciding whether they screwed the pooch or not, has obvious advantages. Among these are that it (a) is closer to "no big deal", (b) assumes good faith (where merited), and (c) avoids the evils of voting. Seems like a much more wiki-process way of working, and not obviously worse than the current beauty contest. (Q: What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? A: Cleaning out C:CSD, saving the Amazon rainforest, blocking vandals, and bringing about world peace.) Keeping the current process, while redefining success, consensus, or trusted, is not an answer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)