Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 377:

:::::::Any effective process needs checks and balances; RfA has none. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::::Agree and disagree. Any process that is very simple needs no check or balance, as it will simply fail to produce an end result if it does not work, thus no harm done . An analogy (vaguely relevent metaphoricaly) - the process of lighting a match is simple - strike match against touch paper - it lights or does not, with no check or balance needed. The process ''of'' the process is more complex - strike match away from body, ensure match is not damp, do not douse oneself in petrol first etc. .

::::::::::That's a pretty comprehensive misrepresentation if what I said. Let me give you another analogy. I recruit a policeman (which is what administrators believe themselves to be), there are effective procedures for removing said policeman if (s)he turns out to be unsuitable. This discussion is nevertheless missing the point, which is that whole concept of "administrator" here on wikipedia is screwed. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::::How about this. We seem to agree '''something''' is wrong, but can't agree on '''what'''. RFA is certainly not what it used to be, look at RFA's from years past. There wasn't editcountites and the myriad of other factors that often wage in to whether or not you pass an RFA today. Is this change bad? [[User:Tofutwitch11|<span style='font-family: "Arial Black"; color:Teal'><big>T</big><small>ofutwitch11</small></span>]]''' ^{<small>[[User talk:Tofutwitch11|<font color="Orange">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small>}''' 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)