User:Talrias/Adminship reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mentor system proposal 2 Existing problems 2.1 Vandalism and rollback 2.2 Page protection and copyright violations 2.3 Blocking 3 Current system

[edit] Mentor system proposal

I would like to propose a mentor system for new admins.

Stages:

• The potential admin finds an existing admin who is willing to act as a mentor.
• The request for temporary adminship would be put forwards, and the adminship ability would be temporarily granted.
• The potential admin would have 3 weeks with admin powers, monitored by the mentor.
• A page for use by other users, admins and the mentor would exist for comments on the potential admin's usage of the admin abilities.
• At the end of the 3 week period, the mentoring admin would provide a synopsis of the admin's actions, and offer a decision on whether the potential 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. Currently there are irrevocable actions admins can take - these must either be fixed in code, or more appropriately, it must be made absolutely clear that anyone who takes malicious actions as an admin will face severe disciplinary action. I would suggest that the Arbitration Committee handle any admin abuse cases brought with this new system as a top priority.

This process, in my opinion, would give admins more responsibility, but would make it thought less of as a status symbol and more of as a means to an end - keeping Wikipedia's wheels turning.

[edit] Existing problems

[edit] Vandalism and rollback

Vandalism reversion is tedious - especially without the rollback feature. People voting on the current requests for adminship expect people to have tried their hand at vandalism reversion (not just when they see it, but actively hunting it). This 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 If someone uses the rollback function for something other than vandalism, it should be rescinded.

[edit] Page protection and copyright violations

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.

[edit] Blocking

Blocking 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.

[edit] Current system

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 not 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 councillor'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. This is a problem with the current system; one which my proposal goes a long way to solve.