Wikipedia talk:Administrator Reform

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Wikisource:WS:ADMINS On Wikisource, the community must reaffirm admits every year. --Emesee 19:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A supermajority of all editors would have half or so of all Wikipedians? If that's what the phrase means, I don't think it's workable. Perhaps you could explain. Wjhonson (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt get WJ's comment. Anyway I really like this idea. For admins who would change their behavior after getting through the door, this would keep them on their toes. Its like giving a professor a tenure. The bad ones cant get fired. As it is here, its almost impossible to 'fire' a bad or semi-bad teacher. This means whichever lower level they stoop to, they would never get elected again if they exhibited the same level before they got elected. Anyway, nice policy, makes a ton of sense. Whoever made the policy was very sensible. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is, the passage says to renew you'd need "renewal by a supermajority of Wikipedia editors", so does this mean we'd need half of all Wikipedians in order to re-affirm an admin? Otherwise, what does it mean? Half of all voters in that particular case? Wjhonson (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it now thanks. I have no comments on that, I think just a regular RfA process would work for each yearly renewal. If there are only 20 admins there and 1400 here, that fact is offset by the additional and proportional number of users as well. But there have been many proposals like this before, but consensus on any strategy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that the essayist meant something like, not a simple majority. That is, not 50% of the votes, but maybe something like 75% of the votes cast. I'm conflicted on how this situation would actually progess. Seems likely that vote-stacking, meat-puppeting or Review-trolling would occur.Wjhonson (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as a failed proposal, three years on and there's been no action in making this become a reality. Fences&Windows 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]