Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3

Quick comment
As in the previous two rounds, the rationales and comments are specific and helpful. It's not just this RfC, the RfCs right before and during this one also had a lot of informed participation. Good things will probably come from all this energy ... I hope people see that, and stick with it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Probation for new Admins
Was 16 to 9 in Rd 2 and attracted the most aggregate votes, IIRC. Why is it not part of the Rd 3 decision? Leaky Caldron  10:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Tbh, I dont think probation proposal would gain sufficient consensus here either, although on other hand I think it would have got better support/oppose "score" then current proposals.--Staberinde (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest we add that one. It was a good idea and I think it would have a chance. Everyking (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a single interpretation of Probation that got even majority support ... it was a concept, an early stage in negotiations, rather than a finished proposal. As we said in the close, we have no objection if you guys want to do any RfC on this at any time. It's going to be at least 3 months before I close another RfC on any topic. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But didn't it get majority support in round two? What do you mean? Surely it couldn't do any worse than the present proposals, which are being shot down by overwhelming margins. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't that mean that this whole RfC would have, in the end, accomplished nothing at all? I think it would be wise to try some other proposals. Everyking (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How is 4 proposals passing "nothing at all"? That's 4 more proposals than have ever been passed in any broad RfC on RfA, ever, and all of them have the potential to make a difference. For the two Round Three proposals, most of the voters in Round Two avoided the question, so we knew going in support was weak ... that's why there's a Round Three on these. On probation ... go back and read what the voters said. There were few details, and voters who "supported" were actually supporting different things. I'm optimistic that you're getting closer ... if you have a specific proposal, the next RfC might succeed. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Dank, you've done sterling work on this for 3 months but your interpretation of consensus on probation seems wrong. I see no confusion here:

Probationary period for (at least some) new admins
I believe that a lot of the opposition and negativity in RfAs is due to a perception that if a candidate is given the tools, it will then be difficult or impossible to remove them if they later turn out to be unsuitable. I propose that newly appointed admins (perhaps limited to those that are borderline at RfA or where support falls below a certain level) serve a probationary period (say 3 or 6 months), during which they are under 'review', effectively open to recall for a specified period, and receive mentoring in admin tools. Any misuse of the tools within this period beyond accidental misuse, demonstration of lack of competence, or valid block, would lead to desysopping, or temporary banning from using certain tools, and this would need to be fairly strictly enforced (with no 'but they do a lot of good work' get out clause or IAR exemption for example). At the end of the probationary period they would either become 'permamnent' admins or have the probationary period extended, perhaps with a similar process to RfA but based on the closing bureaucrat judging the validity or otherwise of opposition rather than vote counting - a candidate passes probation unless there is a convincing reason put forward against it. Basically, I feel that people would be more inclined to give candidates a chance if they are more confident that the tools will be removed if they if they prove to be unsuitable. There is also the problem of people citing a lack of experience in administrative areas as a reason to oppose. This would allow candidates to gain that experience before becoming 'permanent' admins, and it may allow candidates with a lower percentage of support to progress to a probationary period - 65% support for example. It may also encourage more people to go through RfA, with more confidence of a successful outcome, particularly if the mentorship aspect of probation would give them confidence that they will get the help they need to 'get it right'.

If such a process were put in place we would need to ensure that frivolous complaints about new admins can be dismissed quickly and without creating drama - candidates would need to be confident that they going to get fair treatment during their probation.

Support Probation

 * 1) As proposer. --Michig (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Best suggestion so far. Leaky  Caldron  19:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I like this, because it makes RfA less draconian, less black-and-white. RfA participants that are neutral or uncertain can approve, knowing that if anything goes amiss during the probationary period, that a revocation  is possible.  Of course, the revocation during the probationary period must be relatively easy (contrasted with after-probationary-period revocations). --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Good idea. This would help more people get through RfA, while also setting up a process to desysop or discipline bad admins early on, thereby solving two problems in one stroke. It might also get people to relax their standards, knowing that a successful candidate will still be on a tight leash. Everyking (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Good idea. I wouldn't support reducing the %age threshold to pass, but it would certainly make me less likely to oppose. I'd suggest all new admins, not just on support %age (as some of the problematic admins in the past have had high support %ages). The 3-month review would need to be simple and low stress, while allowing an opportunity for good-faith editors to come forward and express concerns. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes yes yes. Brilliant idea. The reconfirmation process could either be a discussion (no voting), or a simple support/oppose vote with a separate section for discussion. I wouldn't like to put people through a "second RFA", so I think this process would have to be run slightly differently! — This, that and the other (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) A reasonable step in ensuring competent admins are entrusted with the tools.  dci  &#124;  TALK   06:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A provision for a probationary period could eliminate a lot of the angst that gets expressed in RfAs. --Orlady (talk) 07:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Would make it easier to support candidates who may be lacking experience in some areas.--Staberinde (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) I like this idea a lot. I agree with others that it would reduce a lot of the unpleasant atmosphere around RfA. I think it would actually be helpful to some admins. I'd also like to take issue with some of the oppose rationales. Although I agree that many of the cases involving desysoppings have involved long-time admins, that really is a red herring. This proposal doesn't have to solve every problem; it solves some of them. The fact that we don't have formal, empirical evidence that the difficulty of desysopping contributes to the high standards at RfA does not mean that it doesn't happen. I'm convinced that it does, if for no other reason than that it influences my own comments in RfAs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, or at least support on a trial basis. While it's true that new admins don't tend to be  frequently deadminned, I've certainly seen candidates opposed out of fear that they might "go of the rails" and do something crazy, often not so much for evidence that they would, but lack of evidence that they won't.  It might be a lot easier for some editors to support a candidate for a trail period, and it is possible (although by no means, clear) that this would actually reduce RFA tensions. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) We use a similar "safe-hands" approach when promoting people in the workplace all the time. It works both ways, i.e. the candidate also gets to decide if they like the "job" once they've had a chance to actually carry it out for a while. It's a sensible suggestion that RfA candidates get to use the tools for a 'trial' period. That way, all concerned parties can see if adminship is the right thing for the applicant, and it could encourage more editors to apply for what would likely be a slightly less-stressful RfA experience. — sparklism  hey! 08:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) I support as per nom, this is a good idea and may help encourage both new admins, as well as give the community a bit more comfort with giving out more tools to people who otherwise might have been considered boarderline. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, as a casual observer of RfA's I can't claim to be the expert on the tools but this seems like a sensible proposal. It might make RfA less of a daunting proposition for editors. I think many responsible editors would volunteer to be on 'trial' anyway as a show of good faith. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. It might reassure some super cautious voters at RFA that we are not handing the mop to a renegade who will misuse it. However I cannot think of many "new admins run amok" who would get de-adminned by this process. Edison (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. New admins should usually stay away from controvertial areas, as one needs to have significant experience to handle those correctly, removing one of the major objections frequently given for a community desysoping process. And any enemies a new admin will have made will probably need to wait longer than that before resurfacing under new IDs, removing an other objection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please reconsider. Leaky Caldron  09:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me talk with Ed and we'll see what we can do. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We'll be acting on this, Ed and I are on the same page, I just need one more quick reply from him. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's up; go vote. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Support principle, but suggest using the term "novice" instead. If I should ever run for RFA, I would not want to be on "probation". DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [Moved from above, where it interrupted a quote of Round Two material - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)]
 * Agree with this. "Probation" reads to me as a conditional return of privilege to someone who has lost the privilege due to an offence.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What is probabtion?
This probationary adminship is an old idea, and it probably has had different descriptions. Is there a description of the thing addressed by the 16 supporters above? Is probation for all new admins? It is just new admins in the discretionary zone, and if so will this move the discretionary zone down? Will the closing bureacrat decide whether the consensus was for probation, or does is require that some RfA !voters !vote "support for probation only"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The outline proposal - what 16 people supported in RfC Stage 2 - is above the list of those supporting it. Leaky  Caldron  11:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 65% - 75% gets the candidate "Probationary adminship" for "(say 3 or 6 months)" during which the details are unclear and there are "would" fluffwords in the text. "At the end of the probationary period they would either become" - Who decides?  I would expect a probationary admin to do a confirmation RfA.  Like I said, this is an old concept.  I was expecting something more polished.  Decent idea though, I'm sure I supported it once before, but can't remember where.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you really feel that criteria for adminship are generally too low? (your userpage)  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Better defined RFA criteria
One item from RFC #2 that appears to be dropped, and not addressed in either the closer of 2, nor the introduction to 3 is the issue over a better defined RFA criteria. I believe there was enough discussion to have those various questions summarized, clarified and !voted on here. For me, the issue of vauge/subjective RFA criteria significant weighs on how I address the issues brought up in RFC #3. Thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Better questions needed" got one support, and "Agree a Criteria" got 50% support. If you mean one of those, neither got consensus to move to the next round ... but of course that doesn't stop you guys from doing any work on that you like. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A review of the criteria that receive 50% support I believe was muddied by the specific inclusions of the criteria itself. It may be useful to first decide on if we should have more specific criteria defined, and then, from there, decide on what those might be. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)