User:B Fizz/Admin for X years

Much of the opposition to WP:Community de-adminship is that "ArbCom already does a good job of this". In parallel to that proposal, I would like to explore the possibilities of a limited term on Administrator status. I feel that what I have explained below is a fair and reasonable proposal, with room for improvement.

This fixed terms proposal is not intended to take the place of the CDA proposal, but rather, to help solve some of the same problems in a very different way.

Overview

Term

The idea is simple enough. For the argument's sake, let's put the term at 2 years, though the precise term could change. An administrator, from the moment the sysop bit is set, will retain that status for 2 years unless it is removed by some process (be it ArbCom, CDA, or otherwise; that is not the concern of this proposal).

Wait period

We may consider requiring a waiting period of anywhere between 2 weeks to 1 year after being auto-de-sysopped before an administrator can re-apply for Adminship. Reasons for this may vary; my reasoning for this would be to see if the admin's ego can withstand a few weeks without the mop.

To quote Jorge Stolfi, who suggests a 1-year wait period and 2-year term, "Knowing that one will be a plain user at least 1/3 of the time would hopefully prevent an otherwise very human tendency of all bureuacrats, namely making rules that increase the power of bureaucrats."

Auto-confirm

On the flipside of the wait period idea is the notion that, if no objections are raised, that an admin should be auto-confirmed for another term of service. Each auto-confirmed admin would be one less RfA to process, lightening the load on (what I see as) this proposal's weakest point.

I personally would prefer a wait period, though by being creative, we could implement both.

Term limits

There should be none. A user may return to adminship an indefinite number of times, subject only to the wait period.

Previous objections and my responses

The idea of reconfirming admins is not new. At WP:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators, a few objections are raised.

• There are already 859 administrators; systematically reconfirming them all every 2 years would mean 10+ reviews per week.

The flaw in this argument is that not all will re-apply for adminship. Some of the 859 admins are not active, some would not feel the need to re-apply. My proposal does not require review for every admin, but rather, allows admins the option of re-application, should they so choose.

• Reconfirmation "on demand" has faced objections about potential abuse.

My proposal does not include "on demand" reconfirmation. That is another issue entirely.

• The Arbitration process can address problems that arise from accusations of administrator misconduct.

ArbCom handles highly controversial admins. But what about those who have proven themselves mediocre, sub-par, less than we expected? We should have a simple way to deal with these cases without having to appeal to ArbCom.

Recent concerns and my responses

It is probable that these objections have come up in the past, but I am only aware of these objections as they have been raised in direct response to this proposal. [All emphasis in quotes is mine unless otherwise stated]

Difficulty of being re-elected

The current CDA proposal requires a high amount of distrust from the community before an admin is considered for de-sysopping. Re-elections, however, would make it much easier for an admin to be de-sysopped: for better or for worse.

• "Most of the admins who come up for reconfirmation will invariably have a faction that wants them de-opped." - Jeremy
• "A fixed term would give [those whom an admin has acted against] a wonderful get-even opportunity...the system would cripple the most effective admins." - Johnuniq
• "Re-running would in effect make it so that only 20%-30% opposition would be needed to end an admin's tenure...more harsh than the current CDA proposal." - Father Goose

This is a very valid argument. Let me begin my counterargument by replicating the statement I made elsewhere:

"My proposed term of two years gives plenty of time for an admin to out-live the spammers, vandals, and so forth. My perception is that such troublesome individuals usually get bored of Wikipedia quickly or are dealt with accordingly." - User:B Fizz

This situation could further be remedied by slightly modifying the rules for a re-election RfA:

"The reconfirmation could be based on consensus to desysop rather consensus to keep the bit. This way, the ones with grievances can not as easily torpedo a reconfirmation." - User:MrMurph101

While I feel this may be too lenient, the idea is right. If consensus find the difficulty of being re-elected to be a big issue, then I would suggest that re-election RfAs require ~50% support instead of the typical ~70% required for a new admin.

Drives away valuable admins

Tightly linked to the previous concern is the concern that the extra politics and drama will be too much for some admins, especially the ones that crack down on spammers, vandals, POV pushers, and so forth.

• "The emotional toil (not to mention the pointless waste of time) would be a win for the opponents of Wikipedia, and would definitely lead to some admins dropping out." - Johnuniq

This is also a very valid argument. However, it flies in the face of WP:NOBIGDEAL. So you got de-sysopped? There are still plenty of ways that you can contribute to Wikipedia. We must simply prepare our admins to face the possibility of being de-sysopped.

Admins are like cops, not congressmen

This concern ties in directly to the "difficulty to get re-elected" concern. Since administrators often perform tasks that impose regulations on users, it has been argued that admins are like cops. How likely would you be to "re-elect" the cop that gave you a parking ticket?

• "The focus [of this proposal] isn't on deeds that are good for Wikipedia, but politics" - Jeremy
• "Admins are not elected representatives, and as such notions of recall and term limits are way off base; do cops get recalled or term limited? No, there are other processes for dealing with cops who break the rules." - User:Rd232

To be frank, I entirely disagree with this concern. First of all, WP:Advice for new administrators advises the following:

"Wikipedia administrators do have certain powers, and you need good judgment to use them. Nevertheless, this does not mean that administrators should act like police or judges."

RfA is an election process. Administrators are given sensitive tools that enable them to carry out community consensus; essentially, administrators represent the community in all administrative tasks that they perform. Admins are elected representatives.

This proposal does indeed focus on politics. It attempts to make a clear policy that will promote "deeds that are good for Wikipedia" by making it harder to retain adminship.

So what's the point?

Encourage innovation

By requiring a renewal at 2 years, we allow newer admins to stand on equal footing with old ones, so that the adminship does not become merely a club for the elite older members of the Wikipedia community. Fresh minds will be empowered to make meaningful change as the English Wikipedia continues to influence the whole internet.

Clean up the list of admins

Under my proposal, inactive admins (along with all other admins) will be auto-de-sysopped after 2 years. If they choose to come back 5 years later, they will be required to meet the expectations of the 5-years-evolved Wikipedia community.

Remove mediocre admins

2 years is a long time. An admin that does not perform up to expectation during his 2-year term of service can be rejected at his next RfA, if he chooses to apply.

Being an admin is not a big deal

If the sysop bit isn't a big deal, then it shouldn't be a big deal to remove it after 2 years. Clinging to the sysop bit is a manifestation that one feels it is a bigger deal than it is.

Trust and improve the RfA process

We have a process that works. It may be flawed, but nobody's been able to replace RfA with something better. My proposal doesn't introduce anything new in the way of selecting which admins are to be re-elected. Just send them through another RfA.

To quote Father Goose, "The core problem with RfA is that it does not allow us to be bold in electing admins because we cannot revert our decision later should it prove to be a mistake."

Details: ideas

How to de-sysop 859 admins

If some form of my proposal were accepted, then we would need to schedule a LOT of admins for de-sysopping. One way of handling this would be to schedule those in Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall within the first year, and the rest within the second year of beginning the process, spreading out the de-sysopping over the year so that we don't lose all of our administrators at once.

How to get this idea rolling

This may best be implemented first as a voluntary thing. I propose a bot or something built into the English Wikipedia source code that can carry out the task of de-sysopping automatically at the appointed time, if an admin chooses to opt-in.

To quote Sxeptomaniac, "If some admins were to reject voluntary recall in favor of stepping down or resubmitting an RfA after a specified period of time, it might open editors up to the idea of admin terms in general."

Dealing with the idea that "there's not enough admins"

Many objections have the underlying insinuation that, should this proposal be enacted, there wouldn't be enough admins to go around. Since this proposal allows us to take a risk on RfA candidates who fall below the standard 70% support mark, we could consider lowering the RfA support standard to ~60% for new admins, and ~50% for returning admins (re-elections).

Sources

Most of these ideas and all quotes come from Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/RfC, unless otherwise stated.