User blog comment:MisterWoodhouse/Creating new wikis on the Unified Community Platform/@comment-29964201-20200303184623/@comment-38078079-20200303190933

I can't speak for the user, but I personally have an issue with "active" admins. I put that in quotation marks, as they're the type of admins that log on maybe once every so many weeks, make an incredibly minor edit, and thus remain "active". They can then theoretically say "no, I don't want anyone to adopt this wiki" or even just make an adoption invalid off the bad, as staff can go "there's an active admin".

I do think staff should have more leeway to judge on a case by case basis in circumstances like that. . . like, another issue I once saw was when an admin protected all the main pages, so a user couldn't actually make edits in order to match the criteria of editing for a week. I can't remember how it was resolved in that circumstance, but I do think the "rules" should be more "guidelines" or "preferred", like "the more you tick off the better, but you don't need them all for a potential adoption, as staff will judge individually".