Forum:Official proposal - term limits for MA administrators

Original Proposal
Following on from this discussion, I am now officially proposing a system to help ensure all administrators remain fair and impartial. I propose the following: As it currently stands, all admins, once successful, remain admins for life. There is no incentive for an admin to maintain a high standard or abuse their "powers." By implementing a term limit, they will know that their standards of adminship will be scrutinised come voting day. This would also have the added impact of creating a community event twice yearly where everyone can get involved to decide who should be administering "our" wiki. I appreciate any polite comments you may have. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:23, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominations for adminship occur twice a year, for example in January and again in July.
 * Any admin nominated remains "in office" for a maximum of one year and will need to be reaffirmed after their time has expired.
 * There must be a minimum number of votes required for adminship to be bestowed/reaffirmed.
 * In the run up to admin nominations, there will be an MA-wide announcement with a dedicated page where current admins can present their reasoning for reaffirmation and their ideas for the wiki moving forward. During this period, existing users will also be invited to question admins on their ideas and how they will solve any issues that may arise.
 * Current admins and prospective nominees may invite other users to vote for them or simply garner interest in the nominations themselves.

Discussion

 * I disagree with this idea for the following reasons:
 * A wiki is not a democracy, and should not be run like one. It shouldn't be a popularity contest.
 * I would be hesitant to involve non-regular users in the process who are not familiar with it and not familiar with why such an event is taking place or the reasons behind it. There are better ways to generate community interest- that should not be the goal of the admin process.
 * It is too open to abuse by those with personal grudges or issues with a particular admin. We already have users accusing admins of acting together as a secretive group- the same could happen with users, who would secretly get together and gang up on an admin, not because they don't deserve to be one, but because they don't like them.  A way to counteract that - requiring a lot of votes- would not work as we don't have that many users(and we shouldn't attract them to such a situation as I described above) and it still is open to dissatisfied users ganging up on people.
 * Who would moderate such a forum?
 * I would add that even Wikipedia does not have a user-based process to remove their admin's status that different from what we do now(discuss it).--31dot 23:40, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I oppose Trekfan's idea, do we actually have a process for removing admin's status? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:48, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I remember discussing one two years ago but nothing came of it.  I would still be open to a removal process of some sort(not necessarily with the criteria on that old page I wrote) but I disagree with the idea of consistent renominations or term limits.--31dot 23:52, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * {many edit conflicts; this was originally in reply to 31dot's first post here)Well, what else are regular users meant to do if there's a gross miscarriage of justice carried out by the admins at large?! That is not to suggest the acting-as-a-group thing but the complete opposite – the omission of action by a group, without organizing that action, but with each member of the group still carrying out the same lack of action. What other alternative is there, for the regular users? Suggesting an alternative would likely be far more productive than just dismissing (albeit with reasonings) a suggestion, 31dot. --Defiant 23:57, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion on the removal policy I suggested two years ago is here.
 * Without carrying too much of the other discussion to this page, I think that it got out of hand and would have benefited from a cool-down period after which all parties could have discussed the issue calmly, without attitudes or accusations(valid or otherwise). That's what should be happening.  I could envision having some sort of vote for removal or other sanction- but creating a bureaucracy based on popularity and unnecessary repetition(for "good" admins) isn't the answer.--31dot 00:05, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this would lead to a popularity contest. It is a basic expectation that an admin should be a polite, friendly, approachable person. If they are the complete opposite, then people aren't going to think much of them and thus perhaps wouldn't vote for them. --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:14, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and also think we should include the rule about omitting non-regular users from the proceedings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there'd be any problem with that aspect. Anyways, thanks for your input, 31dot. I do agree with you about the "cooling off period," and that's what I've requested on the other page. DC evidently isn't doing any "cooling off" (to my mind, understandably so), but still.... --Defiant 00:19, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * With text-based communication, what is polite and friendly is a matter of opinion- and this whole discussion has involved accusations of rudeness where, if looked at a different way, there isn't any. Anyway, my main concern is that any removal process should be on a case by case basis and not a regular basis.--31dot 00:23, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] - @Defiant: OK, yeah I understand the user comment. Perhaps we could include a restriction akin to that in the FA nomination policy? Something along the lines of "any registered user who has been an active member of Memory Alpha for at least the past month, with an additional 100 significant edits to their name" perhaps? --| TrekFan Open a channel 00:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that would be good. @31dot: "Accusations of rudeness" doesn't really apply to me. My issues are with infractions of the policies and guidelines. As I clearly outline (with proof) on the other page, Archduk3 has repeatedly broken the policies and guidelines (this, despite my genuine extreme respect for him as an editor). I'm doing my utmost to not bring my personal views into this – the policies and guidelines are paramount in my mind right now, as they should be to you too (not that they're not). --Defiant 00:54, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a case-by-case process would be more beneficial in instances similar to this one and less prone to abuse and use as a popularity contest in such an instance, such as the suggested policy I wrote two years ago(link is above-I'm really not trying to toot my own horn here, it was a starting point) --31dot 00:58, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I had actually read all through that. I found it to be an interesting read, and quite productive. Also noteworthy is this page; were there any objections/suggested changes, etc. to it, and is there any now? --Defiant 01:08, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * There weren't too many; Cid raised a few at the bottom of the discussion. I responded to them but it didn't really seem to go anywhere after that.  Just got lost, I guess. --31dot 01:17, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to throw this open to TrekFan and Distantlycharmed too (if I may), since you've already supported the version outlined here. Would you have any problem(s) with implementing this version, or would you support it as well? --Defiant 01:51, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] - The real reason for this is obvious, so why dance around it? I've spoken a number of times about increasing the number of admins and removing inactive ones, but never as a cover to remove piticular admins because I have a grudge, like the users here clearly have and are doing. This is just trying to politicizing the admin position to override the point and purpose of it. If TrekFan would turn down that position to make a point, as backward as that point may be, why in the hell do you expect any of us to play along with this insincere suggestion that does nothing but do what you can't acomplish elsewhere, and for good reason I might add, to get revenge on the admins who don't agree with you? - Archduk  3  (on an unsecure connection) 02:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Archduk3, I have never once expressed a desire to become an admin nor do I wish to become one now. I'm sure if you go back far enough you will see multiple instances of where I have voiced my opinion regarding some (not all) of the admins on this site and their attitudes towards other users. The fact that it has now received more widespread discussion and support (from at least two other users) serves to highlight my prior beliefs and observations during my time here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:10, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've explained, this is entirely impersonal, on my part, too; you have absolutely no grounds to suggest otherwise, Archduk. This is not personally about you by any means, unlike the other page. In accordance with the guideline of assuming good faith, you should not be taking everything so personally. In fact, whatever happens with your particular case of repeated policy-breaking, I think it would be in MA's best interest to have something like this. While reading the pages 31dot helpfully linked to, I was reminded of how I kind of let MA administratorship go to my head; it was like there was nothing to stop me. I've learned the error of my ways, but I believe that provides a good precedent for how this system can be a good tool. --Defiant 02:24, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It feels like it takes a lot of courage to admit that. Anyways, it just so happens that your case is fairly recent. However much it's linked to this or not, I'm quite sure other, similar cases will crop up in due course; it's certainly not the first time admins have been guilty of rule-breaking (in reference to both myself and others), as we're all Human... at the end of the day. This procedure should therefore be valuable when admins do screw up. --Defiant 02:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * @TrekFan - I would hardly call the same people involved in the other discussion "widespread", and I'm well aware of your opinions of the admins here, you even thanked me for being one of the good ones this year, but let's not pretend this is unrelated and not directly motivated by the lack of a consensus to "punish" me or the other admins who don't agree with you. The assumption of abuse is right there in the reasoning, despite the fact that there is no consensus that there was abuse and that you didn't add a "not" in front of it. I know that a consensus can remove me, or anyone else for that matter, from this position, and creating a system to override that is nothing but what I've already said it is.
 * @Defiant - I doubt that. Are we to let a vandal run free in the database because the first page they vandalized is the page of the only admin around at the time? Are we to let trolls keep trolling because they personally attacked every active admin? The spirit is more important than the letter, even if you have already decided I'm guilty. You have opposed past discussions on this simply on the grounds that removing inactive admins is "unfair" to the time lords in out mist, so I certainly entitled to my opinion here, which I will not change as long as this remain the last bastion of a fail attempt to do what you can't do elsewhere.
 * If either of you were interested in this really, you would be pushing for more admins, not less, since "the more people that participate in the system, the better". If anything, only admins should be allowed to discuss the removal of another admin, since they are the only people on here who are entrusted to uphold the "rules" by the wider community in a unanimous vote before enforcing those rules may have made them unpopular with those that break them, and their friends. - Archduk  3  (on an unsecure connection) 03:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'd like to add is that this: "an admin should be a polite, friendly, approachable person" simply is not the complete description of an admin. An admin is also the guy who is supposed to maintain order on the wiki - by removing content we don't allow, by keeping vandals in check, by dealing with trolls. All of this includes eventually telling people off and being (somewhat) unfriendly to those who deserve it because of their actions. If being an admin becomes a constant popularity contest, this will interfere with the job description. -- Cid Highwind 09:13, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. I've seen it asked of what people should do if they feel "wronged" by an admin- they should talk about it, like has been done before(a little talking about it led Defiant to surrender his powers).  I don't mind writing such a policy down if done the right way- but the policy proposed here isn't the way to do it.   I also think that if people are interested in doing so we should let this cool off for a little bit before we take it up(perhaps on the original discussion page)--31dot 09:40, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially, words seem to be being put in other people's mouths; Cid, did TrekFan say the polite & friendly thing was the only condition of being an admin?! Not at all, can't find that description anywhere. Did he say admins should consistently be polite and friendly, whatever happens, to completely everyone?! No, I can't find that either. @Archduk; I find your first three sentences, "I doubt that" to "personally attacked every admin," quite hard to understand (you doubt what?) and, again, they're full of notions I didn't suggest. As you can see from my above posts, I have actually been concerned about "gross miscarriages of justice," so how you got from that to thinking that I'm in favor of them completely baffles me. I strongly suggest you follow the guideline of taking some cool off time, since a lot of your interpretations of what I'm trying to communicate are so far off the mark! Do other users interpret what I'm saying in such a faulty way, I wonder(?) I haven't "decided" you're guilty; that much is a fact, which I've proven. To repeatedly block users prematurely and ignore the "assume good faith" guideline is breaking the rules. Can't you see that?! Also, your argument about my having opposed such discussions previously doesn't stand up to scrutiny, either; people change, and that seems to be another fact you're just gonna have to learn to accept. --Defiant 09:59, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Please take some of your own medicine, Defiant. I just noted that the description that had been given before was incomplete, because I thought it was important to mention that. So what if the original author didn't claim it to be? - it's not as if I attacked TrekFan for consciously trying to hide the whole truth about admins, or something. Also, this whole (unfounded) claim about "repeatedly blocking users prematurely" has been the point of the other thread - let's keep it there unless you want this thread to go the way of the dodo fast, too. -- Cid Highwind 10:09, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. It just seems Archduk3 is in denial about something I've already proved, over there. If you require more evidence, I'll be happy to supply that on the other page. Also, you're right – I may have been quick to judge your reply to TrekFan. On the other hand, you could have made more clear your reasonings that you were only noting that the descriptions were incomplete. You might note that I made a similar mistake (not being clear enough) on the other page, so it's a pretty easy mistake to make. --Defiant 10:16, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyways, I did say "seems" to be putting words in others' mouths. --Defiant 10:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my way out so I have to respond quickly - @Cid, I didn't say that was the only quality required. I was responding to your popularity contest argument in that yes admins had to be polite, friendly and approachable. Although, even when dealing with spammers/trolls, it is still possible to maintain that politeness. @Archduk3, the discussion is about your recent conduct over the past few months. I posted that message in January when I did think you did a good job. That has since deteriorated into what has ultimately been described here and in the past forum discussion. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:55, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we please make an effort to stay on topic and stop diverting from the issue by bringing in accusations, ad hominem attacks and other stuff? I thought we agreed to that, didnt we? Anyway, I am frankly flabbergasted that in the 21st century we are actually sitting there debating with people why a democratic system based on proper checks and balances to insure the highest standards and prevent abuse and complacency by those in power is a good thing.  I mean really? That we are even having an argument about that, like this was debatable, is truly beyond me. for clarification, the recent debate about admins abusing their privileges precipitated this discussion and the need for a system in which people are held accountable. Period. Currently there is no accountability and people who are being abused have no recourse and they get discouraged after a while coming here  - unless they agree with admins on everything of course. So let me summarize why the proposal would be very helpful to all of us. (Some of it I am repeating since the discussion was moved)


 * 1) Any democratic system requires a system of checks and balances in place whereby those who are in power positions, such as admins in this case, do not get to just do whatever they like without any repercussions since they are locked in their lifetime appointments. Yes, repercussions exist but it would have to be a truly appalling transgression at this point to get an admin disciplined.


 * 2) Admins currently have little to no incentive to maintain a high standard pertaining to their own conduct since there are no adverse consequences to their actions.


 * 3) Yes, there exists a mechanism by which admins can be stripped off their rights, but it is more of a confrontational/adversarial process whereby someone has to bring up "charges" or accusations and wait for others to vote - the end results being what we have seen with the recent incident. It is like electing a president for life until someone decides to impeach him, which is very hard. But how much better is a system in which he is elected every so many years so that those who believe he isnt doing a good job can vote on it in a democratic process.


 * 4) The suggested plan by TrekFan seems more proactive, less adversarial and as he stated it would also help in maintenance and just keeping the system up to date with admins who are no longer active or dont wish to be admins.


 * 5) As to the popularity contest issue: Electing admins frankly is a popularity contest. Someone who does a great job technically and knows a lot but whose personality is hated by others is not gonna become an admin. We have seen that time and again on here where people did not become admins on personal grounds/issues someone else had with them. So that argument is moot.


 * 6) If we are a community and we have elected "officials" it is only fair that said officials be held accountable and to certain standards and currently there is no such system in place. There just isnt. And i mean real accountability - not the "go look up the rules" accountability currently in place. Currently the system is biased, adversarial and it is next to impossible to discipline abusive admins. People (other admins, contributors etc) arent confrontational for the most part, they dont wanna have to take sides and start the "process" of having to "look into it" etc. Every way you look at it, it is a very one sided system and it needs some kind of "reform". Distantlycharmed 17:25, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm flabbergasted, too - flabbergasted about how you request that others "stop diverting from the topic", only to claim the same stuff again as if the whole discussion inbetween was invalid or didn't happen in the first place. If that's not a diversion, I don't know what is...
 * So, again, and in less than 3.5KB text: we're discussing (and for the most part opposing) this suggestion exactly because we believe that it would not install "proper checks and balances" and "prevent abuse", but quite the opposite. -- Cid Highwind 17:52, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * See, again, you just cannot stay on topic can you? Anyway, just STOP IT ok? Stop the getting personal and putting people on the defense by making those snide remarks that make it look like people are stupid and "dont get it" because they dont agree with you or their thought processes dont resonate with yours. Just please STOP. You do that all the time. This type of making your way through a debate isnt going to resolve anything if you havent noticed. It just creates bad blood. And dont misrepresent my position. I am the only one pretty much who stayed on topic since a while here, summarizing the need and importance for such a system, as it went under amongst all the bickering and accusing and obfuscation. And frankly from what I have seen about the "discussions" above it has mostly been either people, driven by their emotions of recent events, dismissing good points and arguing as to why they should keep their power positions for life and not be asked to be really held accountable or the "he said\she said" stuff of bickering over semantics to change the topic from admin accountability to their own person. I made my points and if you want to refute them by making sound arguments that dont involve some backhanded remark, please do it but dont make remarks like "oh you just dont get it, look at you, I am so flabbergasted too at how you dont get it". Your behavior is exactly why we need such a system in place.  You are rude and you make way too many underhanded remarks around here which mostly go under. I am  going to suspect that most people who opposed the issue probably didnt want to bother reading through what you call the "discussions" - way too many side topics and bickering for the general audience to keep track of and be involved in. That is why I stayed out. Distantlycharmed 18:33, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying DC is that all those people opposing this are simply too stupid and easy confused to follow this discussion, or too lazy to read it. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure they're all smart enough to see this is a bad idea suggested by people with an ulterior motive, and it will do nothing but the opposite of what you claim it will do. Cid is on topic, it's just not going the way you hoped it would, and since you've just insulted everyone who doesn't agree with you, maybe you still need to sit this out. - 18:45, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with the proposal because I think it would be much simpler to simply vote an admin out of his or her adminship if we feel he has behaved badly. --Pseudohuman 19:13, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * No Duke, on the contrary. Expecting accountability by people so they dont abuse their power is not informed by ulterior, evil motives as you imply. Since you have, according to yourself and your friends around here, been behaving like a model admin then I think you shouldnt have anything to worry about right? I dont recall this as being about you, this is a general proposal precipitated by an incident - just like most policies, statues and laws in life. Some event happens that necessitates the need for reform. I also dont think people who opposed are too stupid to understand (your words, btw, not mine), I think that the volume and level of bickering is just something they probably didnt want to deal with and maybe just glanced over it and decided on a no to get it over it.
 * @ Pseudohuman: Good point and I thought that too but dont you think the act of voting an admin out of office is just adversarial and confrontational and realistically only happens in cases of severe misconduct? As in it wouldnt be a substitute for ensuring they are admin material? Administrating, at least on MA, is more than just site maintenance, it is leadership and when there are little repercussions for bad behavior, those who lead might easily succumb to complacency. Also, it's important to keep in mind that this is not just about voting out of "office", it is about finding ways to discipline as voting out of office should be the last resort if you ask me. As someone stated previously, it is more the spirit of this that is important. Some kind of accountability system other than "you can be kicked out of office". Distantlycharmed 19:36, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to respond to some of DC's points above:
 * 1)This isn't a democratic system, so we shouldn't compare it to one. It should take an appalling transgression to strip someone of their status- one that could not have been resolved amicably through discussion.
 * 2)If being removed isn't a consequence, I don't know what is. I'm not sure what other "consequences" there could be.  I also have to wonder if the goal here is to simply punish alleged misbehaving admins instead of trying to resolve any issues that come up.  I'll note the vast majority of support of this proposal is by the person who claims to have been wronged by an admin and their friends- most others are opposed.
 * 3-4)Removing someone's admin status is by definition adversarial, and this idea will not make it any less so, and will in fact introduce more adversity on a regular basis.
 * 5)It is not moot- this idea would turn the process into more of a popularity contest than it is currently, not less.
 * 6)I'm still not sure what is meant by "accountability" that doesn't happen currently through discussion and possible removal.
 * I probably won't have too much more to say on this page, as it is becoming clear this proposal will not be enacted as written. I will again suggest that we take some cool down time before discussing any other proposals for a clearer process to remove admin status.--31dot 19:57, September 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] - I'm pretty sure there's a snowman quickly melting in hell right now, since the last thing you said I agree with. What hasn't been stated yet is that if there was a decision by administrators to block another admin, that admin would be expected to comply with the block even though they would be able to remove it. That's been the assumption I've always worked under, and just like the "policy" for creating more bureaucrats, I don't see a reason to enshrine this case-by-case informal procedure with legaleze, especially when words can be used to obscure what's being said. But none of that was in this suggestion, and that wasn't the spirit of it either, since this remains an attempt to blah blah blah see above. - 20:02, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, there's still a distinct lack of fairness and equality in this dictatorship-like regime and quite a few of those that have added to this discussion seem to agree that the policies should be changed a bit, even while opposing this particular rendition of the proposal. I suggest a similar proposal should be presented, based on 31dot's earlier work (see above). --Defiant 12:28, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the "dictatorship" analogies are extremely inaccurate, and do little to help your cause; if this was a dictatorship, the originators of this proposal would not have been allowed to bring it, and would have been silenced long ago.--31dot 12:33, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see by all the "oppose" votes directly below, that is exactly what many have tried to do. --Defiant 13:54, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Votes for/against

 * Support --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:57, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish to oppose this idea.--31dot 23:55, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Defiant 23:59, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Distantlycharmed 00:54, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. - Archduk  3  (on an unsecure connection) 02:01, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --Jörg 07:00, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose (keeping in mind that policies aren't created by simple majority, anyway). -- Cid Highwind 09:03, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Delta2373 09:41, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Cobra expressed opposition above, just posting here for clarity.--31dot 09:43, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add it officially. Oppose. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:02, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tom 10:18, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose.–Cleanse ( talk 11:08, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose--Sennim 11:46, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Capricorn 11:48, September 15, 2011 (UTC) (note: I'd like to clarify that I'm judging on the specific proposal, not the conflict that triggered it)
 * Oppose (but please work out a clear system of removing admin status from its abusers) --Pseudohuman 12:39, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- Ltarex 16:36, September 15, 2011 (CET)
 * Oppose -- Renegade54 14:18, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Revised proposal
I have purposely given this discussion a break of several days to have a clear think about the points everyone has presented and I feel it is clear a compromise is needed. I would be for implementing an "official" policy of removal for administrators as has been mentioned above, but I would like to add one suggestion; once an admin has passed nomination, they should complete a "probation" period of three months after which three or more supporting votes are required to keep their status. Should they do anything questionable during this time, it can be brought up at the post-probation vote and if they do anything questionable afterwards, the new removal policy can be enacted. I hope this is a compromise that satisfies all points of view. --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:57, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of revised proposal
I am not a fan of the "probation period" idea. Three months is a very short period of time and allows for no mistakes; any "wronged" user could then vote against them. I think that if someone behaves badly enough after obtaining admin powers to warrant losing them in that short a time, then a discussion should be started about it on a case by case basis. If they would potentially behave in such a manner that quickly, then they shouldn't have been nominated and approved in the first place.--31dot 13:05, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point, 31dot. It's a tricky one because it could be looked at the other way aswell. For example, once someone receives those powers, it goes to their head and they think they are the be all and end all, going back to what precipiated this discussion. I think it only right they have some sort of "probation" at the very least as this is usually the same with any position of authority in most organisations and should be the same in MA. However, I will remain quiet now so as to let everyone else voice their opinions. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:11, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

(I am not trying to goad you into responding, but I wished to comment further.) Again, if "power goes to their head" that quickly, they likely shouldn't have been nominated at all; and if they were, then a discussion can be started calling for their removal. I'll note a discussion took place following this incident, and frankly it didn't go the way the wronged person and their supporters wanted- so they now call for changing the policy. I'm still not opposed to somehow formalizing the idea of discussing an admin's removal, but I am less inclined to push for it as this goes on.

I'll further note that my original proposal draft was just that- a draft- and never intended to be the formal policy in that form.--31dot 13:24, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * (It's fine that you responded. After all, that's what this discussion is about! :)) I understand where you're coming from 31dot. You have some valid points but I'm going to let everyone else get a word in so it' not just me taking up space with my babbling on! One thing I will say is that your original draft may have been that - a draft - but at the very least we can use it as a springboard to develop something more substantial. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:54, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, as can be seen above. You've done good work on this so far, 31dot. :) What about probationary periods of longer than 3 months, since your objections to the proposal seems to be time-based? --Defiant 13:59, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] - This is still just an attempt to do nothing but politicize the admin position and punish the admins who the users proposing this personally don't agree with, which can be confirmed by "going back to what precipiated this discussion". This is coming from users who refuse to participate in or even use the current system, feel that all the admins here are "corrupt" and "abusive", and they are simply trying to by continuing this flame war until they can get their revenge. Since this phantom proposal apparently changes nothing in the original "mentioned above" except to add yet another instance of mob rule, these users clearly have heard nothing from the original discussion that they didn't already want to hear, are dealing in bad faith, and all the original votes for opposing this should remain. -  14:43, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Archduk3 but I strongly disagree. Did you not even read what I put in my revised proposal? I wrote "I have purposely given this discussion a break of several days to have a clear think about the points everyone has presented" showing I have read what everyone has said. Furthermore, I stated, "it is clear a compromise is needed" which, judging from the above comments it is. Why do you insist on coming back to this argument that we're out on some personal vendetta to rob you of your admin rights or "game the system" as you put it? It's not like that. I am after a fair and resonable system that makes it feasible to remove admins should they not be suitable for the position. Why is it bad to want change or at the very least discussion on it? --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:53, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

I might oppose probationary periods less if the period was longer, but I am opposed to the concept in general.--31dot 14:57, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. That's cool, as it seems like we're making progress. As for Archduk's latest post, it was yet another breaking of the "assume good faith" guideline. Archduk, I really don't like being included in it, implied as one of supposedly numerous personal-attacker-types, seeing as I've tried – on multiple occasions – to explain that this is entirely not personal on my part, despite your repeated accusations (without any proof, whatsoever) that it is. It really doesn't seem fair of you. Whenever you make such accusations, please either leave me out of them or provide evidence of my inclusion (of course, no such evidence will be forthcoming, since I'm generally a big fan of your work). --Defiant 15:04, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also find it very hard to relate to the criticisms as, simply put, they're just entirely untrue. Are you just taking shots in the dark here, Archduk? Hardly any proof of your accusations seems in evidence. I wouldn't be surprised if you find it very hard to gather substantial proof (certainly in my case, none exists). I don't think such comments are very productive or helpful to this process. I'd be interested to see what 31dot or another admin has to say about them. --Defiant 15:13, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] - That's not a new proposal, it's what was clearly rejected in the original with a three month "probation" period tacked on. I would buy your argument that this isn't personal more if you three weren't "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected" and "sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it", and if either of you had some other example of why we need this policy that isn't DC being blocked for good reason. - 15:18, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I had taken TrekFan's comment at the top of this section to mean that he was in favor of something like the proposal I drafted two years ago plus his probation idea- not his original proposal plus a probation idea. If I'm in error I am willing to be corrected.--31dot 15:32, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I had the same interpretation. Archduk, I meant much more direct evidence than that; I'm challenging you to prove my personal involvement in anything related to personal unlikeness or whatever else personal you suspect rather than trying to help out with the site's organization. Clinging onto suspicions about the trustworthiness, or lack thereof, of any user(s) (with the quotes you presented, or whatever else) is the very definition of breaking the "assume good faith" guideline. --Defiant 15:58, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * You might also note that I haven't even supported this proposal below; seeing as it's still being worked out, I'm undecided at this stage. --Defiant 16:01, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] - I don't see any mention of 31dot's years old suggestion in "an "official" policy of removal for administrators as has been mentioned above" since the only policy "officially" outlined on this page is the rejected one. I also flat out reject for now any user rights policy changes suggested by these users, due to clear bias, and will continue to reject any policy with the stated goal to "remove" admins. If 31dot's old policy suggestion was the "official" policy we're suppose to be commenting on now, then why have none of Cid's years old comments been taken into account, and why was said policy not outlined on this page? All I see here is disgruntled users pushing a biased agenda well after calls for them to cool off have been made.
 * @Defiant - You're insistence that this is a dictatorship, which implies that admins all act with the same mind, despite there being plenty of examples of admins disagreeing, is a clear bias, and you seem to still assume that my edits on this matter are made in bad faith, just like you assumed my block of DC was made in bad faith before you even knew anything about the situation. I'm not you, and I take insult that you think my admin powers have gone to my head just because yours did. If I, or any admin for that matter, was as corrupt and willing to break the rules as you suggest, know that you would all have been permanently blocked well before this point; you're continued ability to edit is all the proof you need that we aren't even remotely like what you suggest. So I ask once again, why should any suggestion from someone so biased be taken seriously now? - 16:15, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Archduke, what is there to know about your recent behavior that Defiant didnt take into account? That you, after personally insulting me just a few weeks ago, went ahead and quite hypocritically blocked me for making that "genius" comment? Is that what you like him ot take into account? That it is ok for YOU to personally attack but when someone makes a snide remark (not even insulting to your face like you did with me and the whole "you are too stupid ot click on a link"), they have to be blocked and banned? Is that what you like him to embrace?


 * Fact is that you have been abusing your admin privileges. In how many other languages and descriptions do you want someone to present that to you? You have unjustly blocked user 1312.4 a few months ago and when asked to please explain, you dismissed me and said you didnt care about my "bullshit concerns" then you threatened to block me if I continued asking why you did it; then after making a bunch of personal attacks against me (like Ten Forward ""I'm sure anyone can be excused for assuming that DC can't click a link") - which were completely unprovoked and which you got away with because you can block and i cannot -  you went ahead and blocked me weeks later with the "genius" comment. You are and have clearly been abusing your privileges and your friends are not willing to do anything about it (i.e. do their job as admins as wikia said) and you dont want anything in place that would restrict you from continuing to abuse your privileges and threaten others with blocks everytime they refuse to acquiesce to you. For the 14th time, you should first of all
 * 1)not have invoked the block yourself when you are involved in a "dispute" (violation one) and
 * 2) you had absolutely NO RIGHT to block me when you have been personally attacking me for months now.


 * These are the facts, which you blatantly deny. And now that someone is proposing finding ways to somehow deal with abusive admins, such as yourself in this case, but also in the future as sort of a "safe guard", you, naturally, oppose it and os do your friends. Looking at this, you are not making any good faith attempts of solving the issue or even owning up ot your mistake even, as evidenced by your repeatedly dismissive "gtfo" attitude and the "everything said above is "blah blah blah" comments you leave regarding the issue. You have obviously no intention to move a step forward and resolve the issue in a manner that is good for the community. So we have abuse, which precipitated the whole question about admins abusing their privileges and finding a way to deal with that (as suggested by wikia which assumes there is enough competence here for people to resolve issues like adults) and all I hear is nay saying and denial of the truth and defending questionable admin behavior. Ecept for Defiant and FTrek Fan who have made actual constructive proposals, I dont see you do anything but obfuscate the issue to your favor. So next time someone accuses MA admin ship being run like a dictatorship and you deny it, I might consider referencing them to this site where good faith attempts at resolving an ongoing issue have been repeatedly blocked and dumped on. Distantlycharmed 16:31, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you two seem like a pair of squabbling kids on this subject, I'm unwilling to participate in this any more, unless it returns to the same type of constructive basis I meant it to be on. --Defiant 16:49, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Case in point, the above rambling personal attack from a user who clearly, is friends with the user proposing this policy, with the only example given on why we need this being DC's justified block, and that's stated goal is to remove admins, nothing else. - 16:54, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with this comment about DC's post; it wasn't very productive, either. I'm not sure what "friends with the user proposing this policy" has anything to do with it, though, since we're all acquaintances here. --Defiant 16:59, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * DC: Stop harping on about such things that have already been dealt with.  AD3 admitted that he should not have been the one to block you in the most recent case.  So, unless you have something directly to bring up as relates to the policy suggestion and is not verging on attempting to personally crucify someone, don't post it.
 * If anyone comes in here again and attempts to derail this dicussion with posts such as the one by DC 4 entries above this (16:31UTC), they will be blocked for a brief period of time. No matter who they are. -- sulfur 17:09, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems fair to me... and productive. :) Anyone else who has personal grudges either from what was meant to be a constructive conversation to assist with site organization or from the preceding, personal discussion, please try to deal with that on your own time, rather than bringing it into this forum. --Defiant 17:18, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * @Defiant - It shows that TrekFan has a bias even if he didn't participate in the original "discussion" on DC's block. Since the only example cited here is that "discussion", and since TrekFan did participate in it, it shows further bias based on the timing and wording of this. As I've said before, there are already informal procedures for this, so there is no need for a "official" policy unless those procedures are considered to be inadequate. I've see no reasoning given for inadequacy that isn't personal or even wrong, considering that the formal procedures weren't even followed in the only example given, and none of the suggested policies, regardless of whatever one we're suppose to be talking about, even comes close to covering the same amount of ground or remaining within the spirit of how wikis work as the informal ones. That said, I'm done here, since I've wasted enough of my time on this; you may consider me opposed to any policies suggested in this forum, or in any direct continuation of this one. - 17:28, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quote from 31dot: "I had taken TrekFan's comment at the top of this section to mean that he was in favor of something like the proposal I drafted two years ago plus his probation idea- not his original proposal plus a probation idea."
 * That is exactly what I was suggesting and I fail to see how you could have misunderstood that Archduk3. Furthermore, if you actually read what I am proposing instead of outright opposing it, you would see that I have no interest in removing you (or anyone else as for that matter) as admin, but rather installing a safeguard (in DC's words) against future misuse and abuse. Whether I agree that you have abused your powers or not is in the past. All I want now is for us to move forward while developing some sort of system that stops this whole thing from happening again. I don't think one word of what I have said or proposed on this page can be directly related to you, Archduk3. You need to get this idea that I am "personally attacking" you out of your head, because quite frankly, it's a load crap. I am under the impression that you are simply objecting to this because you have a personal beef with DC and because I happen to support some of her opinions, you're transferring that onto me aswell. Well, it has to stop. Now. If you have a genuine argument to present then by all means do so, but do not insult me by objecting because I am a "friend" of DC. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:55, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

I support Cid's idea below for a rest on this issue and will further suggest we wait until the first of the year before even contemplating any policy in this area.--31dot 20:38, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally approve of that plan; there's too many people taking stuff personally here. --Defiant 21:48, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Votes for/against revised proposal

 * Support: --| TrekFan Open a channel 12:57, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose probationary periods, again noting that policies are not made by a formal vote.--31dot 13:25, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, again. - 14:43, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's very obvious that nothing productive will come out of this discussion at the moment, so I will oppose any further removal policy that is suggested in the immediate future, independent of its content. Let's bring this up again in some months. -- Cid Highwind 18:59, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:52, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. (For the record/count only, not that it will make a difference - it is obvious that proposal is being summarily and in its entirety rejected on principle) Distantlycharmed 19:59, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. On the basis that this or a similar proposal is reviewed in several months, at which time it can hopefully be less directly linked with the petty squabbling going on. --Defiant 20:30, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose probations. But there should be a voting out system for "bad" admins. --Pseudohuman 08:13, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know I'm late to the party (LOL,) but I needed to chime in here. I think what folks are forgetting is that this is not a democracy, it is a business.  If you have issues with an admin, discuss it with the other admins and allow them to handle it.  In the business world, you take your complaint and run it up the pole.  You don't have the option to "vote" someone out of their job (board members of corporations excepted.)  As an Engineer, I've had issues with admins in the past.  As a database, network or system admin, I've had engineers have issues with me.  It happens... it's life.  But there are civilized ways to address these issues aside from a flame game or a pissing contest.  My two cents IGaveUpCrackForThis 05:38, January 15, 2012 (UTC)