Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

Well, I am all for it, but, then again, I am a bit biased as I am not an admin, and want to be one.

On 2/10/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:

Having read with great interest much of the discussion, I'd like to offer another proposal for reforming the way we get admins. This isn't really something I'm championing; I'm just throwing it out in hopes of advancing the discussion. Many of the elements are borrowed, and if this goes anywhere, I'll gladly go back and cite them.

The spirit of this is that there is a lot of relatively uncontroversial admin work that needs to be done, so that we should let a wider set responsible people do some of the basic mop-and-bucket stuff. For controversial stuff, that would effectively stay in the hands of current admins. It's more "I guess it's my turn to clean the bathroom" than "I run this place."

The basics:

* We introduce the status of "deputy admin" (other possible names:
  provisional, temporary, transient, acting, probationary).
* Deputies have all the powers of a regular admin.
* If stepping into something controversial or difficult, they are
  expected to get help from a permanent admin.
* The term is limited to, say, 3 months.
* Application is similar, but the bar is lower:
      o they should have a modest history as a useful contributor;
      o they should have demonstrated reasonable knowledge of how
        Wikipedia works;
      o they shouldn't be obviously dangerous;
      o no serious objections means they pass.
* They can be more easily be de-admined. Possible mechanisms:
      o their request stays open, and a serious objection means they
        lose the bit;
      o any N (1? 2? 3?) admins can agree to de-admin them with
        cause; or
      o any serious, validated complaint of admin power abuse ends
        their term.
* After their term is up, there is a mandatory break of say, 6
  weeks, during which they are just another editor.
* After the break, they can:
      o carry on editing, without prejudice or pressure,
      o apply for another term as a deputy, or
      o apply for administrator-for-life status through the RfA

process.

So that's the basic notion. Like a lot of what goes on here, I think there will be a lot of useful social convention that grows up around the core mechanism.

Why do it? Here's my thinking:

Pros:

* Many hands make light work.
* Experienced admins can focus on the hard stuff.
* Gives deputies a track record for future full RfA.
* Helps de-emphasizes adminship as status item.
* Limited scope and term will make it less appealing to those
  seeking admin-hood for the power.
* Helps identify responsible people.
* Wider distribution of power means less us-vs-them divide.
* Requires no code changes.

Cons:

* More admins to keep track of.
* The process of deciding who gets in and who doesn't is more work,
  and possibly more drama than the current setup.
* More work blessing and de-blessing deputy admins.

Naturally, I don't think this would solve all of the problems that have come up, but do folks think it would be a step forward?

Thanks,

William

---

WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l