User:Doc glasgow/provisional adminship

When driving - you sit the test after you've had a provisional permit. That way the examiner has something to go on.

Adminship ought to be "no big deal".

Pertinent observations

1. It is generally agreed that Wikipedia would benefit from additional administrators: we do not promote enough.
2. RfA is reluctant to promote too liberally for fear of promoting unsuitable people. A small percentage of administrators turn out to be unsuitable. This gives concern because, although all admin actions are easily reversible, under our current structures an incompetent or unstable admin will generate a lot of work (endless DRVs and ANI discussion) and be difficult to remove.
3. RfA lacks solid criteria on which to judge candidates. RfAs actually ask the community to do crystal ball stuff: 'if promoted, will this person turn bad?'. We look for evidence, and demand the person has proved themselves in edit count, edit summary, civility, balanced contributions, then we vote. Although these demands will screen out some highly unsuitable people, it is unclear whether they are particularly useful in identifying people who will later become problematic. Of the people desysopped in the past, most have passed these tests with flying colours. There is no evidence to suggest that people barely making or barely failing these tests would more often be problematic. If we dropped consensus requirement to 60%, would we have a large percentage of unsuitable admins?
4. An easier means of desysoping admins would allow more liberal promotion. Stands to reason - we'd be happier taking the chance on someone, if we could change our minds later.
5. Admin recall or annual reapplication proposals will not gain consensus. Maybe because they are time consuming, maybe because they are open to trolling and being used as a weapon, maybe because of the vested interests of existing admins, but for whatever reason, this will not happen.
6. The result is less admins - we either turn good people away 'just in case' or we discourage or delay excellent candidates from applying.

Provisional adminship in a nutshell

1. Grant provisional adminship (with a few basic safeguards) on a trial basis to any established wikipedian, on request.
2. Offer assistance/mentorship during the provisional period
3. Have a process-lite means to revoke provisional adminship if big problems emerge
4. After the provisional period ends, the community decide whether to confirm the candidate.

Advantages

1. We are assessing people on hard evidence, not inferences from edit counts
2. We are monitoring and assisting people who have just been given the tools - encouraging good practice
3. We will have the confidence to sysop many more people
4. The energy we put into RfAs will happen at the end, not begining of the process

Process suggestions

(envisages quite a few more 'crats than present)

Applying for provisional status

1. Any editor with (say) six weeks and (say) 500 edits can apply for provisional adminship. They will have to self-certify that they have read the appropriate admin instruction pages. The default will be to grant it, unless there is clear evidence of obvious unsuitability.
2. Requests will be listed in a public place for (say) 4 days. Anyone with a substantive objection can list it, but there is no !votes, and rarely need for discussion, we are just screening for 'WTF?' candidates.
3. A 'crat will grant provisional status (or decline). This decision will be final (the user may reapply after 1 month, or apply via a standard RfA).

During provisional period

1. There shall be a 'help desk' and perhaps IRC channel for the guidance of provisional admins. Perhaps a mentor.
2. There may be some restrictions (e.g. never to block established users - or a requirement to list all non-IP blocks on 'provisional admin blocks for review'. Or maybe no blocking except IPs - we can hammer out the details later and tweak the restrictions in response to real problems/concerns.)
3. In cases of abuse, rank incompetence, or disruption, provisional adminship can simply be revoked on the certification of any crat or arb. There is not need for any other process (the candidate can appeal to the community by listing a standard RfA.)

Confirmation

1. After (say) six weeks, the candidate shall be listed on a 'request for confirmation' page
2. A community debate shall occur akin to RfA, but judging actual admin action (results are likely to be clearer)
3. A crat shall close the debate (as with RfA). A high consensus to confirm is required. However, in cases of borderline candidates (60-75%), or candidates who have not been very active, the crat shall have the option of extending the provisional period.