This was sparked by a conversation in IRC. Would you consider numeric standards harmful- particularly those regarding Requests for Adminship? I know there is someone (who may identify himself if he feels like it, and whom several people already know about) who places blanket opposition (no Neutral votes, a full Oppose) on any candidate for sysophood unless the candidate has 3,500 edits and has been here... two months, was it? But anyway... First of all, with this specific edit count, I'd be interested in how many of our current sysops meet that threshold. I know that I don't, and a *large* amount of my contributions have been stuff which I really wouldn't be involved in if I were not a sysop- the stuff which comes up on a patrol of Recent Changes (which is hardly as profitable an activity without a Rollback link and a button to delete nonsense, AND the ability to back up the you-might-be-banned notice dropped on user pages). I certainly would not have done a fraction of that quantity of work if I were a regular user. Even without this specific number, such standards may also be inconsistent- a user with an inflated edit-count due to countless corrections or user page adjustments is rewarded under this system, where a serious and careful user may suffer. This is the exact opposite of what is optimal. I'm also concerned that this type of standard places an unnecessary burden on valid users, who might become discouraged by high standards, while it would be trivial for a sneaky undercover returning troll (cited as a reason for these sorts of standards) to meet these sorts of standards with sheer persistence and a little patience. Good people lose out, while the bad ones are merely inconvenienced. I speak here only of sysophood standards. Are there other strict numeric standards which would be subject to effects which are similar?