Politics 101: Remedial or Virtual? Options

[Peter Damian]

Volunteer Marek (our Radek, I think) makes some great points at the current RfA talk. Read it for yourself. There should be a theme of the proposed book, which goes something like this: once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway?

Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

The thread also illustrates pretty well the famous stupidity of Wikipedians.

I am explaining this in detail here but honestly, this is like old school stuff. This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits. This is like Political Science 101. This is why I said that term limits are fundamental to any kind of meaningful RfA reform. You cannot even begin that conversation seriously without considering them. And these convoluted proposals for weird-ass term limits structures or what have you just distract folks - and hey, we all like to give our opinions about convoluted meaningless proposals - but let's keep it simple.
The only meaningful question here is actually how to deal with existing old-time administrators, given that we reasonably impose term limits on new ones. Do we keep the old guys? Do we make them go through it again? If so how? Etc. THAT is what the conversation should be about. Not this "if .0485 of voters express dissatisfaction then we move it to a committee which then decides whether to send it to an RfC for comment blah blah blah" crap.
There's no RfA reform without A-term limits.
Term limits first, details later. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

“How can getting rid of all the admins (for their terms will all eventually expire) help the project? I think what you really mean is that wikipedia must move beyond volunteer editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)”

“Ok. Stop. Think. Stop. Think. ... are there any Senators in the US Senate? Do Senators terms expire? Yes? Are there still Senators in the US Senate? See what's wrong with what you just said? Volunteer Marek 06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460102419

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

Volunteer Marek (our Radek, I think) makes some great points at the current RfA talk. Read it for yourself. There should be a theme of the proposed book, which goes something like this: once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway?

Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

The thread also illustrates pretty well the famous stupidity of Wikipedians.

I am explaining this in detail here but honestly, this is like old school stuff. This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits. This is like Political Science 101. This is why I said that term limits are fundamental to any kind of meaningful RfA reform. You cannot even begin that conversation seriously without considering them. And these convoluted proposals for weird-ass term limits structures or what have you just distract folks - and hey, we all like to give our opinions about convoluted meaningless proposals - but let's keep it simple.
The only meaningful question here is actually how to deal with existing old-time administrators, given that we reasonably impose term limits on new ones. Do we keep the old guys? Do we make them go through it again? If so how? Etc. THAT is what the conversation should be about. Not this "if .0485 of voters express dissatisfaction then we move it to a committee which then decides whether to send it to an RfC for comment blah blah blah" crap.
There's no RfA reform without A-term limits.
Term limits first, details later. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

“How can getting rid of all the admins (for their terms will all eventually expire) help the project? I think what you really mean is that wikipedia must move beyond volunteer editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)”

“Ok. Stop. Think. Stop. Think. ... are there any Senators in the US Senate? Do Senators terms expire? Yes? Are there still Senators in the US Senate? See what's wrong with what you just said? Volunteer Marek 06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460102419

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

[Peter Damian]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

[Michaeldsuarez]

I've suggested reconfirmation elections in the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=438918578

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=438947394 (sorry for the typos here)

It didn't go anywhere:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=439259463

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[Peter Damian]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

[Rhindle]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

If you're not with us you're with the terrorists.

[Peter Damian]

If you're not with us you're with the terrorists.

No, with the Wikipedians. Or did you mean that Wikipedians are terrorists?

[powercorrupts]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I think "Above." would be a little more honest.

Where you given a big box of periods as a Welcome Back gift after your relaxing break?

[GlassBeadGame]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

[Ottava]

This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits.

Ahahahaha what?

If he took Politics 101 he would know that "Democratic elections" took a long time to arise and are still rare. There are many positions in the US that are appointed and lack term limits. Look at the Bureaucracy which makes up 99.99% of the US government.

[radek]

Yes, Peter, do get all your themes at RfA. Let me know how that works out.

Whose side are you on?

Outside.

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits.

Ahahahaha what?

If he took Politics 101 he would know that "Democratic elections" took a long time to arise and are still rare. There are many positions in the US that are appointed and lack term limits. Look at the Bureaucracy which makes up 99.99% of the US government.

Oh Ottava... nevermind, not worth it.

[GlassBeadGame]

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

Poor, deluded asshole.

[Peter Damian]

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

Poor, deluded asshole.

He is saying that Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work on the planet. Many people believe that it is reliable. Why is that deluded?

[GlassBeadGame]

When you play a MMORPG about WWII you are not actually fighting fascism no matter which "side" you play for.

Unless that MMORPG has actual influence on the outside world, which here it does.

Poor, deluded asshole.

He is saying that Wikipedia is the most widely used reference work on the planet. Many people believe that it is reliable. Why is that deluded?

The text generated in playing the MMORPG has nothing to do do with fixing reforming improving or even destroying Wkipedia. It is merely an artifact of the game. Looking for solutions in RfAs or any other internal process is ridiculous.

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

[Peter Damian]

The text generated in playing the MMORPG has nothing to do do with fixing reforming improving or even destroying Wkipedia. It is merely an artifact of the game. Looking for solutions in RfAs or any other internal process is ridiculous.

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

If you had read my original post carefully, you would see I was not looking for 'solutions in RFAs'.

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia. 'Volunteer Marek' is Radek here.

Here's what I said in the original post above.

once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway? Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

It was a comment on human nature. People who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[GlassBeadGame]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

[Malleus]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

Who, apart from you, has even the slightest interest in what you believe?

[Abd]

Here's what I said in the original post above.

once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway? Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

It was a comment on human nature. People who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.

And well said it was. People who did come in, in the second wave, who did understand such things as organizational structure, deliberative process, etc., were frequently banned as they tried to propose sane structure, or gave up in desperation.

There was a vision, a decent one, but far too little understanding of how to implement it, of how to keep it from sliding into the mud. What was built is often a thing of beauty, but often otherwise, and the process was horrific in its human costs, in broken hearts, wasted time, pushing the boulder up the hill again.

[GlassBeadGame]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

Who, apart from you, has even the slightest interest in what you believe?

You, apparently.

[Malleus]

You have returned to editing Wikipedia, haven't you?

And I have not returned to editing Wikipedia.

I don't believe you.

Who, apart from you, has even the slightest interest in what you believe?

You, apparently.

Only in your dreams.

[radek]

Volunteer Marek (our Radek, I think) makes some great points at the current RfA talk. Read it for yourself. There should be a theme of the proposed book, which goes something like this: once upon a time, some IT geeks got together to build an encyclopedia. They knew a lot about bandwidth and html and networks and load balancing. They didn’t know much about stuff people learn in humanities departments but, hey, that didn’t matter, because the magic pixy-dust of technology would sort everything out, and all that humanities stuff was just the old way of doing things, and technology was the new way. What is a humanities department, anyway?

Ten years later they are faced with some pretty fundamental problems. And, er, these are the very problems that people who studied political science have known about for a long time. And there are some pretty straightforward answers. But no one asked, of course.

The thread also illustrates pretty well the famous stupidity of Wikipedians.

I am explaining this in detail here but honestly, this is like old school stuff. This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits. This is like Political Science 101. This is why I said that term limits are fundamental to any kind of meaningful RfA reform. You cannot even begin that conversation seriously without considering them. And these convoluted proposals for weird-ass term limits structures or what have you just distract folks - and hey, we all like to give our opinions about convoluted meaningless proposals - but let's keep it simple.
The only meaningful question here is actually how to deal with existing old-time administrators, given that we reasonably impose term limits on new ones. Do we keep the old guys? Do we make them go through it again? If so how? Etc. THAT is what the conversation should be about. Not this "if .0485 of voters express dissatisfaction then we move it to a committee which then decides whether to send it to an RfC for comment blah blah blah" crap.
There's no RfA reform without A-term limits.
Term limits first, details later. Volunteer Marek 06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

“How can getting rid of all the admins (for their terms will all eventually expire) help the project? I think what you really mean is that wikipedia must move beyond volunteer editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)”

“Ok. Stop. Think. Stop. Think. ... are there any Senators in the US Senate? Do Senators terms expire? Yes? Are there still Senators in the US Senate? See what's wrong with what you just said? Volunteer Marek 06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460102419

It's actually insane how hard it is to convince some of these people of something so basic. (And it isn't just a humanities issue, though humanities like Philosophy and History definitely come into it. It's also basic social science).

Anyway, another meme/analogy that should be dragged outside, executed, buried and covered with lye is that somehow Wikipedia administrators are "volunteers" whereas, say, US Senators are not. US Senators are also volunteers! Nobody forces them to seek public office just like nobody forces anyone to run for adminship. Sure, Senators are paid a salary but even if you think that could potentially make a difference, then the fact that the salary is peanuts compared to the actual wealth/income of the people who become Senators makes the argument irrelevant. Just like Wikipedia admins, the Senators run for Senate because of the "perks" (power, ability to influence the development of society etc.) of the office. There is no practical difference here, except that Wikipedia admins tend to have a tendency to whine a lot about how they're unpaid or something, which says more about the mindset of a typical administrator than anything else (what was the last time that somebody like SandyGeorgia, who does a helluva lot more work than even the best 10% of admins, whined about not getting paid?)

Both should be public servants. Fixed terms are a tool for ensuring (albeit imperfectly) that that's primarily what they actually end up being.

This post has been edited by radek:

[GlassBeadGame]

Saying the problem with Wikipedia is that editors lack protections and processes, are not properly flattered for their "contributions" or suffer from a want of self-expression is like saying Penn State lacks school spirit for the football team.

In fact there was something downright Wikipedian about the "support coach child butt fucking" riots. Is Penn State a "Wikiversity" now?

[EricBarbour]

In fact there was something downright Wikipedian about the "support coach child butt fucking" riots. Is Penn State a "Wikiversity" now?

Funny, I emailed something similar to TFA today.

Believe it or not, WP reminds me of the Joe Paterno scandal at
Penn State. It was truly disgusting, it lasted for NINE YEARS,
and at the end, what did some Penn State students do?
Instead of deploring that a football coach had been raping
young boys, they went out and rioted.
Because their football hero was fired. How dare they fire the
Great Joe Paterno. Time to burn the city down. (Which
they failed to do, because they are pathetic.)

Wikipedia is much the same--a cultish group of crazed idiots,
operating with near-impunity, and reacting with insane hostility
to any criticism, constructive or not. If one of the WMF fanboys
walked into the men's room and saw Jimmy Wales raping a
10-year-old girl, he'd probably just go and tell Sue. Who would
then try to cover it up, just as Paterno's staff did.
Because the Cult Must Live On.

[radek]

Saying the problem with Wikipedia is that editors lack protections and processes, are not properly flattered for their "contributions" or suffer from a want of self-expression is like saying Penn State lacks school spirit for the football team.

In fact there was something downright Wikipedian about the "support coach child butt fucking" riots. Is Penn State a "Wikiversity" now?

Not exactly sure what you're going on about, but I did already make that analogy.

Ok. Trying to take your comment seriously for the moment, it's more like some of us still go to Penn State but we try to be the guy (have been that, for awhile) who held up the "Joe Paterno IS NOT THE VICTIM" (or even more) sign while all the idiots rioted. You seem to be the guy who focuses his anger on that guy. I can sort of understand that (though your motivation seems to be just based around this whole Mohamed image thing, and some kind of bitterness related to that). But seeing as how that's about ALL you've been doing lately at some point it does become a question of totally misplaced priorities.

[GlassBeadGame]

Not exactly sure what you're going on about, but I did already make that analogy.

How nice for you.

[Somey]

Anyway, another meme/analogy that should be dragged outside, executed, buried and covered with lye is that somehow Wikipedia administrators are "volunteers" whereas, say, US Senators are not. US Senators are also volunteers! Nobody forces them to seek public office just like nobody forces anyone to run for adminship. Sure, Senators are paid a salary but even if you think that could potentially make a difference, then the fact that the salary is peanuts compared to the actual wealth/income of the people who become Senators makes the argument irrelevant. Just like Wikipedia admins, the Senators run for Senate because of the "perks" (power, ability to influence the development of society etc.) of the office. There is no practical difference here, except that Wikipedia admins tend to have a tendency to whine a lot about how they're unpaid...

I believe you're overstating this point, and this may be what Mr. BeadGame is objecting to. It's true that most Senators are rich to begin with, and money isn't the reason they run for office... but there's a big difference between being paid less than you could make in the "private sector" and being paid nothing at all. And obviously the amount of actual power, the ability to influence people and events, is far greater for a Member of Congress, or a Member of Parliament, or what-have-you.

I might be willing to accept that Wikipedia as a whole might be more influential than any one, or even two, average US Senators... but compared to the whole schmeer, not even close. Besides, the fact that Wikipedia isn't supposed to influence people politically makes it much more difficult for any one administrator to direct or control the nature of that influence.

You can make a much better general-point argument that Wikipedia is more useful than a legislative body, or any particular politician, but obviously that's not saying much. Also, let me hasten to add that I'm not saying this as an argument against term limits. But the people who say that term limits would increase administrator attrition are probably right - and while I would say that's a good thing, I'm guessing they probably wouldn't.

[radek]

Not exactly sure what you're going on about, but I did already make that analogy.

How nice for you.

Yaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnn

[Text]

PERIODIC REMINDER (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Someone please tell me, and keep reminding me, that anyone who gets involved with this project is fundamentally insane. thank you.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=18556

[SB_Johnny]

I might be willing to accept that Wikipedia as a whole might be more influential than any one, or even two, average US Senators... but compared to the whole schmeer, not even close. Besides, the fact that Wikipedia isn't supposed to influence people politically makes it much more difficult for any one administrator to direct or control the nature of that influence.

I think that's only true when it comes to influence over pop culture, rather than influence over who gets bombed next (though I suppose the Jayjg types might not realize that).

You can make a much better general-point argument that Wikipedia is more useful than a legislative body, or any particular politician, but obviously that's not saying much. Also, let me hasten to add that I'm not saying this as an argument against term limits. But the people who say that term limits would increase administrator attrition are probably right - and while I would say that's a good thing, I'm guessing they probably wouldn't.

The problem with adding term limits and the like is that it would go against Jimbo's pronouncement that the admins are "just trusted users", and that it's "no big deal". If they admit that there really is a power structure, they'd presumably need a charter (and thus have to give a nod to Larry).

Then again they could simply say "sure, it's political" officially adopt the rules from the /b/tards, and go back to business as usual.

[radek]

I might be willing to accept that Wikipedia as a whole might be more influential than any one, or even two, average US Senators... but compared to the whole schmeer, not even close. Besides, the fact that Wikipedia isn't supposed to influence people politically makes it much more difficult for any one administrator to direct or control the nature of that influence.

I think that's only true when it comes to influence over pop culture, rather than influence over who gets bombed next (though I suppose the Jayjg types might not realize that).

You can make a much better general-point argument that Wikipedia is more useful than a legislative body, or any particular politician, but obviously that's not saying much. Also, let me hasten to add that I'm not saying this as an argument against term limits. But the people who say that term limits would increase administrator attrition are probably right - and while I would say that's a good thing, I'm guessing they probably wouldn't.

The problem with adding term limits and the like is that it would go against Jimbo's pronouncement that the admins are "just trusted users", and that it's "no big deal". If they admit that there really is a power structure, they'd presumably need a charter (and thus have to give a nod to Larry).

Then again they could simply say "sure, it's political" officially adopt the rules from the /b/tards, and go back to business as usual.

Just for clarification, don't some of the other language Wikis have fixed terms? The biggest difficulty I see with it is the transition. What you gonna do with the 700+ currently active admins? It'd be unfeasible to have them all run again in November of 2013 or whatever - you got to spread them out somehow or accept a two-tier system where the old ones are for life, new ones are for 2 years.

One way to push it that way is to start asking candidates at RfA to "verbally" (whatever, in writing) commit to resigning and standing for re-election in 2 years and then voiting "Oppose" if they're unwilling. That does sort of privilege those who have already made it though so I'm not sure it's a decent thing to do.

[Ottava]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?

Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

[Zoloft]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?
Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

Fuck it. I can't stay quiet in the face of such idiocy.

Officers in clubs, like the garden club or the art association, often serve terms of one year after election, subject to reelection. There's your model. The model airplane club. Rocketry club. Anime club. Whatever. Transition period for previous admins? Use the calendar date of their old RfA as the new RfA, starting one year from now.

Done.

Now I'm finished posting until the end of the month. Enjoy the respite.

[GlassBeadGame]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?

Dear Just Wondering:

There are 3,143 counties and related entities in USA. In Louisiana they are called parishes and in Alaska they are called palins. Their duties vary but always they are responsible for law enforcement through the elected office of sheriff who carries out the orders of the courts along with other law enforcement responsibilities.

God knows I don't have a dog in this fight and could care less about about where Wikipedian admins come from. But I do care about making Ottava look stupid.

This post consist largely of things I didn't know five minutes ago. Don't care about now and may not even be true. I will not know this stuff tomorrow.

[Ottava]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?
Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

Fuck it. I can't stay quiet in the face of such idiocy.

Officers in clubs, like the garden club or the art association, often serve terms of one year after election, subject to reelection. There's your model. The model airplane club. Rocketry club. Anime club. Whatever. Transition period for previous admins? Use the calendar date of their old RfA as the new RfA, starting one year from now.

Done.

Now I'm finished posting until the end of the month. Enjoy the respite.

"officers in clubs"? These aren't leaders.

I clearly said police. That is the only comparable thing. Are you just dumb or trolling? I suspect both.



Anyone dumb enough to try and compare admin on Wikipedia to elected positions which make laws when administrators clearly have no ability to make rules should honestly be banned from Wikipedia Review outright because there is no legitimate reason such idiocy should be allowed. That especially goes for GBG who has demonstrated such stupidity there isn't even words to describe it.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Peter Damian]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?

Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

There is a distinction between elected officials and officials with an employment contract, who have all sorts of terms and conditions placed around their employment. Employees have annual appraisals, managers and so on. Police are employees.

Further up you have board directors who are usually elected by some sort of process. Some mutual institutions like building societies allow depositors to vote. These systems are far from perfect, of course.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[SB_Johnny]

God knows I don't have a dog in this fight and could care less about about where Wikipedian admins come from.

Mommys' basements, dorm rooms, and roach-infested apartments, for the most part.

But I do care about making Ottava look stupid.

That doesn't really require any effort on your part. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?

Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

There is a distinction between elected officials and officials with an employment contract, who have all sorts of terms and conditions placed around their employment. Employees have annual appraisals, managers and so on. Police are employees.

I'm pretty sure that the "party line" is that the admins are volunteer employees.

[Peter Damian]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?

Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

There is a distinction between elected officials and officials with an employment contract, who have all sorts of terms and conditions placed around their employment. Employees have annual appraisals, managers and so on. Police are employees.

I'm pretty sure that the "party line" is that the admins are volunteer employees.

I'm not sure you can be a volunteer employee.

[edit] I found this: http://www.volunteering.org.uk/NR/rdonlyre...and_the_law.pdf As I thought, the central point is whether there is an employment contract or not.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[radek]

Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?
Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

Fuck it. I can't stay quiet in the face of such idiocy.

Officers in clubs, like the garden club or the art association, often serve terms of one year after election, subject to reelection. There's your model. The model airplane club. Rocketry club. Anime club. Whatever. Transition period for previous admins? Use the calendar date of their old RfA as the new RfA, starting one year from now.

Done.

Now I'm finished posting until the end of the month. Enjoy the respite.

"officers in clubs"? These aren't leaders.

I clearly said police. That is the only comparable thing. Are you just dumb or trolling? I suspect both.



Anyone dumb enough to try and compare admin on Wikipedia to elected positions which make laws when administrators clearly have no ability to make rules should honestly be banned from Wikipedia Review outright because there is no legitimate reason such idiocy should be allowed. That especially goes for GBG who has demonstrated such stupidity there isn't even words to describe it.

The police have the right to arrest you. They do not have the right to try, sentence and convict you (block you). Yours is a false analogy. Elected officials are much closer. If the block button got decoupled from other admin tasks (I'm still wondering why only admins get to close AfDs) then, THEN, maybe you'd have a point.

Honestly, though, all analogies to real life are going to break down at some point. The main reason why there should be fixed terms on Wikipedia is simply because they are needed, end of story.

This post has been edited by radek: