On 06/10/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Do we want to lower the requirements, though? We have 1,000 admins, most of whom aren't that active and don't need to be. The requirements need to be *right*, but that needn't mean lower. We're still promoting people who don't know the policies several months after promotion, and I'm talking about the basic ones e.g. don't block when you're involved in a content dispute. Against that, I saw someone lose an RfA (or he was losing the last time I looked), because he wasn't putting the correct tags on vandals' pages when he reverted them, which was absurd.
Yeah. It's measuring the wrong things.
So it's a question of drawing up sensible criteria. I don't like the "no big deal" thing, because it's prescriptive; the reality is that adminship *is* regarded as a big deal.
I know it is, but it still *shouldn't* be. I realise that admin on Wikipedia is by its nature a bigger deal than board mod on some small web forum, but there's a lot of others to help and I'm glad to see there is peer pressure.
- d.