Forum:Changing the RfA Voting

So because of my recent RfA I've been thinking about them a bit and came to a simple conclusion (much do to AK's probably half-serious vote). Because of our simple, 150 MS edit requirement, this allows anyone who has that many edits to vote. So what if in theory there's someone running for admin and they get six supports from editors with good judgment and one editor with bad judgment? It wouldn't really be fair. The problem here is that people like HoT87 exist...decent editors who can easily qualify, but horrible judgment.

So I'm thinking, possibly, we should limit the RfA voting to rollbackers and administrators. And I know loads will cry "corrupt administration", or some bull, but it makes sense. Because of our recent influx of new, incompetent users who don't stay long, almost the only competent users are admin/rollback. Additionally, usually if we GET a competent user who sticks around, they get promoted to rollback just like that. It also gives the feel that the current 'staff' are choosing the new 'staff', which is something that I personally find completely acceptable. This way it limits the voting to competent users who can make educated decisions regarding the RfA. I know a lot of people aren't going to love this but I thought I'd bring it up. So...uh, discuss.