User talk:ChazBeckett/RfA Proposal

My main concern is not the % problem but the RFA regulars problem. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal and we are supposed to have admins who are trusted not to abuse admin powers. Now in order to trust someone you need to know them, there is no substitute really. But this is not how it's working because we have a number, a large number, of regulars who vote on all candidates. They do not know them so they have developed a series of questions and arbitrary standards as substitutes instead. But these substitutes are stupid, anyone can answer an arbitrary question with a lie. The present system encorages political arse licking answers rather than actual truthful ones. Anyone can deliberatly rack up a large number of edits to go over silly edit count rules.

It's broke and changing the percentages cannot fix it. We need to think of a way to get rid of regulars voting on people they have never met on Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that changing the percentages won't actually fix it, it will still increase promotion rates, which is something we need. While I consider it a temporary fix to hold us off until someone can think of something better, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be instituted. --Rory096 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If this proposal works out well it might build up some momentum to introduce larger fixes and eventually we'll make some progress. At some point, the ball needs to get rolling and I think this is movement in the right direction. ChazBeckett 20:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]