Hi people,
This is my first proper contribution to how Wikipedia is "run", and
I'm jumping straight in the deep end! I would say 'please be gentle',
but adminship is a serious issue, no matter who says "adminship is no
big deal".
My first contribution to Wikipedia was only back in November of 2004,
when I fixed a couple of links regarding spin in politics. I
unfortunately think this is somewhat how requests for adminship is
going at the moment, with people quoting Jim Wales' comment about
adminship when it suits them.
I didn't contribute to Wikipedia on a regular basis for a few weeks, I
made a few edits relating to photosynthesis in plants, and a few
spelling corrections and one instance of reverting vandalism, which I
had encountered for the first time on Wikipedia. It was nothing major,
just me dipping my toes in the water. As I am a forum moderator at a
fairly large internet community, I'm quite used to spam, trolling and
most importantly, controversy. While some rightly say that Wikipedia
is not an experiment in democracy and the community should not be the
foremost target, it is important not to forget that it is hard to
imagine what Wikipedia would be like without its community and
consensus.
Every time I look at Wikipedia I am reminded just how much I don't
know. I pride myself on my general knowledge and I'm normally able to
do a substantial part of any general knowledge crosswords, and I was
gratified when one of my friends commented on it. The pursuit of
knowledge is a lofty goal and I'm glad to be someone contributing to
it, even with minor contributions like me, like spelling corrections,
rewrites and aiming to improve comprehension and clarity of some
Wikipedia articles which may not be written as well as they could have
be.
I have tried my hand at simple vandalism reversion for a set period of
time - one time I managed 90 minutes, the second time a bit less. The
reason I stopped was that /vandalism reversion is tedious/ -
especially without the rollback feature. That people voting on the
current votes for adminship expect people to have tried their hand at
vandalism reversion (not just when they see it, but actively hunting
it) is counter-productive - reverting simple vandalism is time wasted
for people without rollback. We should give the ability to rollback
liberally, but revoke that privilege liberally. If someone uses the
rollback function for something other than vandalism, it should be
rescinded. I think I am right in saying that the rollback feature was
initially developed specifically to fight vandalism - I do not yet see
any need to widen that remit.
The page protection tool is another useful ability, being used to
forcibly stop edit wars. I think it should be used in one more
scenario - suspected copyright violations. As a relative newcomer I
read the events leading up to RickK's departure with great interest. A
suspected copyright violation should be protected until the situation
is resolved - isn't that what the point of it is? I think that
copyright paranoia is something to be wary of, however it shouldn't be
dismissed. If a copyvio is suspected, the page should be protected as
soon as possible (with the template in place) so we don't have the
same repeat situation with revert warring over whether or not
something is a copyright violation. I think we need a clearer policy
for admins on this.
Banning is a different issue, and something I believe new admins
should be careful about doing. We have a 3RR policy, sure, but it's
supposed to be for clear-cut cases of revert warring. When we get to
the grey area about edit warring and defining vandalism I think we
should be wary of using the 3RR to forcibly settle a dispute. Assuming
good faith on behalf of the person who made the accusation should
definitely be done (surely they had a reason, especially if they are a
long-term contributor - making unsubstantiated copyvio reports might
be vandalism). I think we should be less hasty with applying the 3RR
rule if people are disagreeing over whether it should apply under the
3RR rules.
Where am I going with this? I've reviewed the different admin
abilities (excluding deleting, which we have a good policy for in my
opinion), so what? I think we need to look at our admin appointment
system as a whole.
I am concerned, as some people have already voiced, that requesting
adminship is becoming a popularity contest. Some people are elected
with huge majorities, with a couple of dissenting voices from people
who have had disagreements with the electee in the past. Without a
reason for voting, it's difficult to tell what people are voting for.
Are they voting for the person's character, or something else? I think
Boothy443 is right to question the voting procedure (however I don't
agree with the method of doing it). I am attempting to demean those
admins who have been elected to adminship with large majorities and
turnouts - but what does 50 names really show?
The procedure in requests for adminship I do like is the discussion on
opposition votes - the tone it sometimes takes may just have to come
with the territory. When you vote at elections in the "real world", at
least in the UK, you aren't voting for your concillor's or MP's
character, you're voting for the policies that they stand for. This
analogy is not quite apt to requesting adminship, as there is one set
of policy formulated by everyone. But only today I read a story about
a conman who convinced many people that he was a spy, and deceitfully
conned thousands of pounds. I would contend that someone's outward
personality is not, alone, a valid reason to give them administrative
powers. But the issue arises - how does one determine whether someone
would make a good admin without trusting that they would? I would
argue that it's very difficult.
Therefore I would like to propose a mentor system for new admins. If
someone wishes to become an admin, they should find an existing admin
who would willingly mentor them. When a mentor is found, the request
would be put forward, and the adminship ability would be temporarily
granted. During a set period (maybe 2-3 weeks) the mentor would
monitor the actions of the adminee. A page for comments by other users
and admins would exist. At the end of the period, the mentoring admin
would provide a synopsis of the adminee's actions, and offer a
decision on whether or not the admin should become a permanent admin,
or returned to "normal user" status. A bureaucrat would be
responsible for making the final call on whether to promote or not.
An obvious flaw, so far, with this system, is that a potential
malicious user can go through the adminee period, get nominated
without a hitch, and then cause trouble. This is why a deadminship
procedure would need to be created - abuses of power should /not/ be
tolerated. Currently there are irrevocable actions admins can take -
these must either be fixed in code, or more appropriately, it made
absolutely clear that anyone who takes malicious actions as an admin
will face severe disciplinary action.
This proposal, as it stands, does give admins more of a
responsibility. I don't think this is a bad thing - admins do keep the
wheels of Wikipedia turning. Changing the process to become an admin
will result in it being thought less of as a status symbol and more of
as a means to an end - ensuring that Wikipedia stands the test of time
to become a fountain of knowledge - the reason I joined up to
contribute, in my own way, to Wikipedia.
Chris
--
Chris Jenkinson ([[User:Talrias]])
http://talrias.net/