User talk:B Fizz/Admin for X years

Scheduling
I'd schedule those admins who have not used tools for say 6 months first, then those who never passed an RfAd (there are some), and then the rest in order of becoming Admins. DuncanHill (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I'll think about this some more and work it into the proposal. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 02:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Objections
It doesn't make sense to lower the standard. Then, you'll have more, worse admins, and people won't get renewed. It just seems like pointless WP:CREEP. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a point, though in the case of a new admin going through RfA, I wouldn't immediately equate less community support with a "worse admin". I don't understand your rationale behind "people won't get renewed". Won't lowering the standard for renewal to ~50% support allow us to keep the admins that have proven themselves trustworthy while gracefully de-sysopping those that haven't? ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 02:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, poor admins will lose support. (At least I'd hope they would) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We recently had some big discussions about this at WT:RFA, they've now been archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 194. I would suggest that before restarting the discussion you read through that thread and see if you can work up a solution that meets the objections people raised there, (in my view it is also sensible to let a few months elapse before restarting a perennial topic). Particular arguments you might want to focus on are:
 * For a very short term such as two years how do you make it practical without losing most of your admin corps/Swamping RFA.
 * Is it sensible to take out the most experienced admins?
 * How do you avoid the situation of admins getting out of situations because "they are up for renewal in only x months/only just reappointed".
 * Arbcom is not known for reticence in desysopping, looking at the number of recent desysoppings we don't seem to have a problem in making admins accountable.
 * The fewer admins we have the greater their scarcity value - so a proposal to get rid of most of them based on length of tenure could make it more difficult to get rid of problematic ones.
 * Some editors still hold to the ambition of adminship becoming the norm, for all experienced, civil, clueful editors. Anything that reduces our number of admins works against this.
 * RFA is a harsh process and very difficult to persuade people to run for. How do you persuade enough existing admins to run again to keep the deletion and blocking processes going?
 * I'm one of the 272 admins appointed in the last 24 months, so if this was introduced I would be one of the few admins left trying to hold the fort. Would I try and continue, yes I probably would, as long as it was still enjoyable and I thought it was possible. But I'm here as a volunteer, if the site chooses to implode and turn into something that can no longer defend itself against the vandals, spammers and trolls, why should I go down with the ship?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is very valuable feedback. I'm starting to see now that if we really are to switch from "Admin for  life" to "Admin for X years", then RfA definitely needs to be  simplified; that complicates the proposal tremendously. I will most certainly read the recent conversation, review each of these points, and attempt to address them. I don't pretend to know all the answers, so any suggestions to tweaking this proposal would be very welcome. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well to be frank I'm very much in the camp that thinks that like an exam or a UK driving test RFA is not something you should need to pass twice, there are many things at RFA that I would like to change, this is not one of them. However if we were to move in that direction I'm keen that we only move to a workable system, and I'm happy to engage in discussions on that basis. You might want to check out User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month which gives a partial idea as to how few admins you'd have left if you made this sort of change (partial in that by no means all the admins appointed in the last 24 months are amongst our remaining active admins). Also you might want to consider whether there are other ways to achieve whatever change you hope to make by re RFAing longstanding admins. I for one am quite keen on the idea of ongoing training and refresher training, plenty of organisations and professions use that as a way to keep skill levels up-to-date and decisions consistent.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 16:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey 1
I've created a survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I invite anyone and everyone to participate. It is found at User:B Fizz/Admin for X years/Survey 1. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)