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