I actually agree with much of this, even though my oppose votes are generally "made by someone who is pursing a policy agenda of stricter standards" (though I don't agree with the "furthering a campaign" bit... because I'm not really campaigning; I just simply feel that 90% of the time, users with <2000 edits are not ready).
Thanks for all the history and analysis, it was a good read.
While I think coming to a consensus on promotion standards is a nice idea, I think it's impossible. There is too great a variety in the opinions of users on the matter. Some users would not have a problem supporting a candidate with 1200 edits. However, to some users that would be unthinkable. Same for time periods. I know some users that would probably support someone with six weeks under his/her belt, while I know others that won't support anyone with less than three months (or longer).
I would not oppose a "probationary period" for new admins, though I would oppose any such period longer than three months. Six months is unnecessary, IMO. I would also oppose not allowing "probationary" admins to block users. Blocks can be easily undone. If the community votes to give a user adminship, then he should have all the powers/abilities entailed. blankfaze | (беседа!) 16:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Most of this is a solution in search of a problem, it seems. The other part is unenforceable. While I'd like to see RfA made less of a popularity contest (like the ridiculous attempt to strike down a nomination on the grounds of the user's deletionist principles), I don't see any way to enforce common sense on people. Ambi 08:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Ambi. Admins are no perfect (especially including me!), but overall they're pretty good and I haven't seen any major problems yet. I occasionally read that de-adminship is near impossible, but I think the very few de-adminships so far are not a sign of a difficult de-adminship but a sign of good admins. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)