On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Admin powers should be granted automatically to users who have been around a while, basically.
Not everyone that's been around a while is suitable to become an admin. We generally try and avoid banning people if it can be helped, if not banning someone would result in them becoming an admin, we would end up with no choice but to ban them.
No, you just remove the admin powers.
Also, it's necessary for admins not only to be trustworthy, but to be trusted. We have enough problems with that as it is, making everyone that's been around for 6 months (or whatever) an admin would reduce that trust even more.
I really don't know what you mean by that.
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.
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.