[Wikipedia-l] Re: Terms for adminship

[Anthere]

Habj wrote:

> At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it
> would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose
> actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting
> re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big
> problem as it currently is.
> 
> At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be
> possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is
> a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this
> system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a
> predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get
> tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from
> admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
> 
> It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the
> argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
> 
> Best,
> Hanna

I think you should just do what you guys think is best in your current 
situation. Right now, german and dutch wikipedia are working this way, 
with a renewal per year.
On meta, inactive sysops are removed and we suggest "inappropriate" 
admins to be removed after a year as well.

So, in all three cases, some admins are regularly removed. Usually, it 
is not a problem because
* there is no urgency (as there might be in case of an abusing sysop)
* there is no dispute (as the request can point out to a voting page 
where a steward can check if the removal is legitimate).

So, it is not a tiring job for stewards.

As for "being allowed", my best answer is "this is your community to 
decide what you feel is best".

Best

Ant