[WikiEN-l] Requests for adminship reform

Fri Jun 24 18:25:32 UTC 2005

Chris, the long thoughtful post on this issue is appreciated. I agree
that article protection should be used more before the block button,
and admins should be encouraged to do this.

As for mentorship, I'm not convinced it needs to be done so formally
since nominating someone for adminship is an implicit endorsement and
vouching for that person's future as an admin. In contrast, a
self-nomination is viewed with much more caution and usually goes
through more scrutiny. Also, the scenario of someone "sneaking"
through the adminship process is something we all fear, but we seem to
have thwarted quite well.

-User:Fuzheado

On 6/25/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> That's exactly the reason we ask people to show some involvement with
> admin duties before giving them those extra shiny buttons. From those
> edits we should be able to tell if they are trustworthy and committed
> to the project.
> 
> IMO large majorities tell us, a lot of users have seen them around and
> agree the particular person being voted for is doing a good job and
> can be trusted with admin powers.
> 
> Admin mentorship is a nice idea. I would certainly help new admins get
> their footing, but I'm afraid it takes time away from what admins
> should really be doing. Fighting vandalism, deleting nonsense and
> generally keeping things running.
> 
> Finally, I think we should encourage people voting for adminship to
> tell their reasons. That avoids "me too" votes and forces oppose
> voters to explain themselves so others can seriously consider the
> points they make.
> 
> --Mgm
> 
> On 6/24/05, Chris Jenkinson <talrias at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
> 
> > 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/
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>