Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing later choices on facts. Thus: 1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be immediately replaced by new nominations.) 2. How many went nuts? 3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months? 4. How many continued editing without using admin powers? 5. Which admin powers did they use? 6. other questions?
6. How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way admins were chosen?