On 06/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)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.