On 8/23/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
No, you just remove the admin powers.
I support this strongly.
If our goal is actually to have good admins then we must be willing to remove the powers from people who misuse them. If we are already doing that, then we have no reason to worry about giving adminship to someone who will misuse it, since we could just reverse their actions and remove the adminship.
Rich Holton proposed this back in February:
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 long as we make the minimal criteria high enough to require a substantial investment of productive time.
We don't want people minting tons of admin accounts for the purpose of defacing the main page. We can avoid this if we make the time investment long enough that the 20 second long main page defacement won't justify the many hours of work required to get adminship.
[snip]
*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
Too easy to just mint accounts. If we are going to take a fixed number of probationary users, we should use criteria like:
*Account is not an admin, and has no arbcom ruling preventing them from being an admin. *Account is at least 6 months old. *Account has had no blocks in the last three months *Account has at least 50 edits to non-userspace in each of the last three months. *Account has edits to at least 10 distinct non-userspace pages in each of the last three months.
Then we make a list of accounts meeting that criteria, order them by number of non-userspace edits, and pick 100 people at random from the top 50%.
This final step means that the criteria to get accepted depends on the activity level of all the other non-admins.
I'd gladly produce a list of users if we have a 'crat that wants to try this.