[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout

[Rich Holton]

geni wrote:
> On 2/9/07, Rich Holton <richholton at 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.
>>
> 
> So we increase the number of paper admins in return for what? Risk
> benefit analysis doesn't look good.
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I have better things to do with my time than babysit admins. So do most people.
> 
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Statistically no. In fact you end up with resentment against the lucky
> ones. At least at the moment there is some theoretical reason why
> people are or are not admins.
> 
>> 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
>>
> 
> So I now need to be hitting users who stay just below the level of
> blocking with 1 second blocks?
> 
>> Essentially, just enough to give a good indication that the user is
>> involved and isn't a trouble-maker. Nothing more.
>>
>> Comments? Flames?
>>
> 
> I strongly suspect you don't know all the things that it is
> theoretically possible for an admin to do.

Well, in your last point you're wrong. I'm one of those "paper admins" 
that you seem to hate so much.

As far as "hitting users who stay just below the level of blocking with 
1 second blocks", it sounds to me like "gaming the system".

What is your *real* objection to this suggestion, Geni? You seem to 
simultaneously complaining about any added work, and bashing good faith 
suggestions for improving the situation.

-Rich