[WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

[Sarah]

On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> As I said, it'd be nice if most editors could get it without
> ever-increasing requirements on RFA. Should there be a requirement
> beyond "will not go batshit with the tools"?
>
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. 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.

Sarah