On 4/16/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Increasing the number of admins -> increasing the
numbers of both active and
inactive admins. The latter might be bad, but I think it's really neutral;
the costs associated with it are minimal. The former, however, would yield
great benefits.
If we could increase the percentage of fairly active admins many of
our current problems would cease.
So basically if there's this guy who is competent
and qualified to be an
admin, but he hasn't written an FA/reverted 100 vandals/made 5000 edits, he
should automatically be rejected? That's the reasoning I'm seeing on RfA at
the moment.
Generally the reasons are a bit more sophisticated than that.
A thousand article edits is substantial. Short sniping
remarks don't
contribute much to the discussion.
1000 edits could be adding cats and interlang links. With the various
semi-automated editing tools around 1000 doesn't appear to have the
value it used to. Personally I would different on that point but then
I accept I tend to be rather old fashioned on theses things.
They answer to the community, do they not?
Despite some proposals that currently appears to be the case.
So we should just stop trying, eh?
Well given several years by a large number of wikipedians has yielded
sod all it would appear to be a fairly logical approach.
--
geni