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 If someone uses the rollback function for something other than vandalism, it should be rescinded.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/