Timwi wrote:
Rich Holton 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.
Then, we watch these 100 "probationary" admins for 3 months. If they
abuse their admin powers in that time, their admin status is removed.
Within no time, you'll have people impose ridiculous criteria on what a
probationary admin needs to do in order to "pass the test". Before you
know it, people will be demoted simply for being on holiday and not
showing up in a month.
Well, you may be right about what would happen, but that is certainly
not my proposal. Under my proposal, if the person did nothing different
from what they had been doing, or even if they did far less than they
had been doing, they would still be kept as an admin.
I know that there have been objections amounting to the fear of 'bots or
sleeper vandals becoming regular admins--apparently this is one of the
reasons the RfA requirements continue to creep.
Remember that under my suggestion, we're talking a total of 6 months
that a sleeper vandal would have to "sleep" before they entered the
ranks of "normal" admins (3 months of keeping your nose clean, followed
by three months of continued good behavior as an admin). And remember,
someone setting out as a sleeper vandal would not be guaranteed of
becoming an admin after three months, it's still up to the random
selection. Is it impossible for someone to game this process? Sure. Is
it likely? Hardly.
-Rich