On 08/04/07, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Sam Blacketer wrote:
That is indeed what RfA should become, but the problem which needs to be solved is how to set up the process so that this assessment is made in a more intelligent way other than simple voting. If, for instance, instead of asking the community to "Support" or "Oppose", they were asked "Is <x> trustworthy? Yes/No" the result would be indistinguishable from what we have now. The only change would be the heading over the top of the !votes.
Rehashing an idea I proposed awhile ago, how about a set of standards similar to those at [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] (but [[Wikipedia:Administrator criteria]] instead)? If opposing comments are not relevant to specific points in the criteria, they can be ignored. Not a perfect system, but it might be better than the current system.
FAC requirements have notably raised over the past few years, both consciously and unconsciously. I see no reason such a system for RFA would not be susceptible to the same problem. In fact, the present problem is pretty much requirements creep.
- d.