Would anyone object to refactoring the section headers so that it was clear in the edit summary which topic someone was referring to? For example: Primary proposal - Support, instead of just support? Monty 845 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a kinda idea, I have no idea whether anyone else has suggested what I'm thinking of, I'm too asleep to try and search the entire 'pedia (OK, that was an exaggeration) to find it (if it exists) ...
...where could I make a suggestion about a possible process (whicih might even already exist) without me getting shot down inflames for rampant stupidity, etc.? Pesky ( talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
For anyone who decides to put forth a serious proposal, I recommend that you first read Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist. During the CDA poll, it was brought to my attention by editors who opposed proposals of this sort. I still think that it's worth a look. If you can, really, check most of the boxes, you will end up being much better positioned to respond to criticism. And unless the community has changed more than I think it has, those criticisms will indeed present themselves. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this idea should go, as it can be used in conjunction with several of the various proposals. It is a variation on the concept of fixed-length terms, and to some extent, the two-phase proposal. Admins would be eligible for recall, but only once every X years. If sufficient support can be garnered to hold a re-affirmation discussion, then one is held around the admin's anniversary of obtaining administrative privileges. Otherwise, the admin's term is renewed automatically. Hopefully for the majority of admins, there would be insufficient demand for a re-affirmation, and so the extra workload of re-affirmation discussions will be kept to a minimum. There will also be an opportunity for the furor over any controversial decisions to die down and for sober reflection to take place before an admin is up for re-affirmation again. This could lead to admins being more bold in the middle of their terms than towards the end, but if admins continue to be appointed throughout the year, this should be manageable. isaacl ( talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone object to refactoring the section headers so that it was clear in the edit summary which topic someone was referring to? For example: Primary proposal - Support, instead of just support? Monty 845 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a kinda idea, I have no idea whether anyone else has suggested what I'm thinking of, I'm too asleep to try and search the entire 'pedia (OK, that was an exaggeration) to find it (if it exists) ...
...where could I make a suggestion about a possible process (whicih might even already exist) without me getting shot down inflames for rampant stupidity, etc.? Pesky ( talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
For anyone who decides to put forth a serious proposal, I recommend that you first read Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist. During the CDA poll, it was brought to my attention by editors who opposed proposals of this sort. I still think that it's worth a look. If you can, really, check most of the boxes, you will end up being much better positioned to respond to criticism. And unless the community has changed more than I think it has, those criticisms will indeed present themselves. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this idea should go, as it can be used in conjunction with several of the various proposals. It is a variation on the concept of fixed-length terms, and to some extent, the two-phase proposal. Admins would be eligible for recall, but only once every X years. If sufficient support can be garnered to hold a re-affirmation discussion, then one is held around the admin's anniversary of obtaining administrative privileges. Otherwise, the admin's term is renewed automatically. Hopefully for the majority of admins, there would be insufficient demand for a re-affirmation, and so the extra workload of re-affirmation discussions will be kept to a minimum. There will also be an opportunity for the furor over any controversial decisions to die down and for sober reflection to take place before an admin is up for re-affirmation again. This could lead to admins being more bold in the middle of their terms than towards the end, but if admins continue to be appointed throughout the year, this should be manageable. isaacl ( talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)