Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-5084796-20150216183232/@comment-5084796-20150216204708

Bourgeoisie wrote:

A5637 wrote:

Bourgeoisie wrote: If a user proves themselves capable of performing admin responsibilities and is voted on by the community, what makes them no longer capable after a set amount of time? I oppose any implementation of term in which adminship (or any user right) is held. Adminship should only be taken from a user if they prove themselves incapable of the responsibility, if they go inactive for an extended, unspecified amount of time, or if they choose to revoke their own user rights. Why does any elected politician have to be re-elected after a certain period of time? To keep them fresh, and connected to the people they represent in order to be reelected again. As I've noted, I'm not saying this has necessarily occured here, and if admins continue to do well they should have no problem with being re-elected. User rights aren't an elected/political position though. They're an extra set of tools for users who volunteer and are voted upon by the community to be responsible for performing actions with those tools. There's no need to keep it "fresh" nor should it be assumed that there should only be x number of admins at a time. If more users are capable of performing administrator responsibilities and are voted to become sysops by the community, there's no reason they shouldn't get that. Likewise there's no reason to remove the rights from users periodically just you don't want "too many" administrators. WP:ANOT and NOBIGDEAL are relevant here. I never said we had too many administrators. I'd also like to point out that we are not Wikipedia, so Wikipedian policies, while a good guideline for many wikis to follow, are not entirely relevant.

Obviously, Admins aren't politicians, but they do have a position of power on this wiki. They are essentially a large part of this wiki's "executive" and "legislative" branches - they propose policies, they have the final call on user issues, etc. Their job is to act in the best interests of the wiki as a whole - curating its content, keeping it updated, and more. For these reasons, they need to be in touch with the community. I'm not saying that this isn't happening, and I'm not even saying that this change is necessary. It certainly isn't. But there's also (in my opinion), no reason that this wouldn't be a better practice. This would provide continous insurance that admins are doing their jobs, and doing them well.

Again I state, admins are people we elect to look out for the Wiki on our behalf. An appropriate term length for admins would both continue to encourage community involvement and make sure community interests are being represented.

Thank you for your input :)