On 4/16/07, John Lee johnleemk@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.