On 04/05/06, Pete Bartlett <pcb21(a)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