On 04/05/06, Pete Bartlett pcb21@yahoo.com wrote:
If precise minimum criteria was phrased in terms like :Create 1 featured article or N good articles or :Graduate from Erik's "Wikipedia School" (which itself had precise criteria)
then I would support it.
Sadly I expect any proposal would actually be terms of (virtual meaningless) edit counts, so I wouldn't.
I agree that edit counts are *relatively* meaningless, but people use them anyway. The reason I support formalising them as a requirement, is to prevent people citing lack of edit counts for increasingly high limits. Once we fix that 1000 edits is enough to be an admin, "not enough edits" will cease to be a reasonable reason to oppose a person with 2000, for instance.
People should still use their own judgment on questions such as the severity of a given incident of incivility, for example. But questions of basic "has this would-be admin been around long enough" should not be left so open to individual whims. And opposing admins for silly things like not yet having validated their email is totally inappropriate.
Steve