[WikiEN-l] RFA has gone weird

[David Gerard]

On 06/10/06, Sarah <slimvirgin at 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.