[WikiEN-l] Admin burnout (deputy admins)

[· Firefoxman]

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



-- 
-Firefoxman