[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

[geni]

On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
> I propose an experiment:
>
> Select at random 100 editors who meet some minimal criteria* and make
> them admins. Make it clear to them that they may turn down adminship
> without prejudice.
>

So we increase the number of paper admins in return for what? Risk
benefit analysis doesn't look good.

> Then, we watch these 100 "probationary" admins for 3 months. If they
> abuse their admin powers in that time, their admin status is removed.
> Otherwise, we treat them as regular admins. The only difference with a
> "probationary" admin is the level of scrutiny they receive.
>

I have better things to do with my time than babysit admins. So do most people.

> If this works, then after 3 months we do it again. And again every three
> months. Soon, adminship loses almost all of its "status" appeal. It's
> just something you'll get if you hang around and keep your nose clean.
>

Statistically no. In fact you end up with resentment against the lucky
ones. At least at the moment there is some theoretical reason why
people are or are not admins.

> Of course, you can still apply through RfA. But I predict that RfA will
> quickly become much less political and controversial.
>
> *My suggestion for "minimal criteria":
>     At least 50 edits to at least 10 different non-own-user pages for
> each of the past three months, and
>     No blocks in the past three months
>

So I now need to be hitting users who stay just below the level of
blocking with 1 second blocks?

> Essentially, just enough to give a good indication that the user is
> involved and isn't a trouble-maker. Nothing more.
>
> Comments? Flames?
>

I strongly suspect you don't know all the things that it is
theoretically possible for an admin to do.
-- 
geni