The Cunctator wrote:
On 2/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@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. 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. 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. 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 Essentially, just enough to give a good indication that the user is involved and isn't a trouble-maker. Nothing more. Comments? Flames?
EXCELLENT idea. If Jimbo and the ArbCom like it (I'm picking the AC as sanity checkers here) then the experiment should be declared.
Good idea. How about no blocks after the first week of editing? Editors who are bold and learn from their mistakes would make good admins. _______________________________________________
Well, my criteria were just a starting point, and I hope they can be improved upon. Do note, however, that I suggested no blocks in the last three months. Blocks early on won't matter after three months of no blocks.
-Rich