There's a notable lack of RFA candidates ... and so the talk page is
full of suggestions for how to raise the bar.
I've commented on [[WT:RFA]]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_admin…
Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", as pretty much all admin
actions are reversible; the idea is that if you're not going to go
batshit with the tools, there's no reason for you not to have them.
(I've actually lowered my personal bar for adminship after a couple of
cases where people I had severe qualms about got their admin bit and
proceeded to do okay with a bit of peer pressure the collegial advice
of others.) The social and technical skills required are about those
of a message board moderator, and whereas there are adults you'd never
want to have that job, the skills are easily acquired by e.g. a
sensible teenager.
And particularly this year, the ArbCom has had no compunction in
removing the admin bit from those who need it removed. Removal is a
big deal, but the AC is there for the social decisions that are big
deals.
So the ever-expanding lists of requirements don't make sense. The
lists above appear to be marks of the ideal admin, who is a bit like
the ideal editor with added technical powers (and similarly doesn't
exist). And this stuff really doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether
they are likely to go batshit with the admin tools. They make
adminship into a much bigger deal than it should be.
I personally think most people need three months' experience to get a
feel for the place. But beyond that, in an ideal world every Wikipedia
editor who's been around enough to get a feel for the place would have
admin powers.
Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a
big-deal artificially scarce commodity.
- d.