While I have proposed this once before, this was when I was in the middle of the argument in question. Here, I am not. I propose that we make a policy for nominating the removal of administrators. While rare, there have been instances of administrators abusing their sysop tools, as well as generally not following the policies of the site. No one is above those policies, not any user, administrator, or bureaucrat. Abusing the sysop tools is even worse than that, though.
We currently have the case of User:Defiant, who's talk page, which has multiple instances of lashing out with anger and personal attacks when basic policies have been pointed out, such as putting proper licenses on images. This came to a head three months ago, with false accusations against User:Gvsualan, a fellow admin, of harassment. That is bad enough, but now out of the blue (and seemingly related), Defiant blocked Alan for a month, claiming "(Intimidating behavior/harassment: guilty of harassment and personal attacks!"
Defiant made no warning to Alan, did not indicate what behavior this block was for, and plainly has a personal issue here (meaning he should be the last involved in any administrative action with Alan), and seems to have clearly abused his sysop privileges. I think the time has come to consider an actual policy on removing administrators.
I'd close saying that Alan and I are likely to be butting heads later today on another issue, and he and I often do not get along. I am not a "buddy buddy" with Alan, and my motives in creating this thread are not based in affection for him, but displeasure at Defiant's actions. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think there should be such a policy, which should meet a high standard to prevent abuse, but such a policy should exist.--31dot 22:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, I too have had disagreements with Alan and am not his best pal, but I have never known him to act in a harassing manner.--31dot 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I may have known him to do so, but he certainly has not in the current issue with Defiant. Off topic anyways :-P --OuroborosCobra talk 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- The entire execution of this page must surely be considered a personal attack! There have been numerous instances, as of late, of supposed "administrators" ganging up on me, to an extent that I believe to be unfair. If anyone needs to be removed from sysop status, it should be the leaders of such personal harassment, such as Gvsualan and - as is made clear from the above - OuroborosCobra. I would suggest that this page, if its existence is subsequently agreed upon, follow an "oppose"/"support" system, so that personal jibes are avoided. If the above is meant to be taken seriously, I will have no problem with answering the complaints when they are delivered without what seems to me to be sarcasm - "false accusations", etc. --Defiant 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not ganging up on you, I generally don't even like Alan. You have not made any of your accusations against Alan, or any sysops for that matter, the least bit clear. You have not explained what you mean by "harassment" with specific examples, nor "ganging up." I have pointed out specific examples. In addition, insult to injury, I'm not even a sysop myself. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Back to the discussion, my early thoughts on such a policy, which are just brainstormed on my part:
- Should at least be the same standards which apply in gaining adminship, if not stricter
- Should contain a period of time during which they cannot be renominated to regain adminship
- Should have clear criteria for nomination and not be based on personal opinion
- Criteria should be limited to repeat offenses and/or a pattern of behavior and not be based on one incident
- Possibly have some sort of cool down period between nomination and discussion to let heads cool off--31dot 22:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is not a "personal attack" to discuss the creation of a policy.--31dot 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. But I do find fault with naming a user and discussing/criticizing their negative attributes when coming up with said policy, since the topic need not to be personal so it is illogical to steer it in that way! I do regard the notion of creating such a policy as being admirable, however, since the intention is to better the environment of MA! --Defiant 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently, it has even been unclear to some that admins are supposed to know the rules which the community enabled them to uphold with special admin tools in the first place. So, step 1 is to make that even more explicit on Memory Alpha:Administrators. I don't consider this to be a rule change at all, just a clarification that wouldn't even be necessary for most.
- As for step two, the "admin removal policy", I'm open for concrete suggestions. I believe we should have one in place to eventually be able to act - however, it should also be made sure that this policy is "fair" insofar as gaming the system to have an admin removed after a very minor issue is concerned.
- What I personally think this policy should contain is some "auto-deadmin" clause for inactive admins. This has been brought up before, but has gone nowhere. The reasoning here is as follows: Any admin that has been inactive for a considerable amount of time cannot be expected to still know about the current rules after his return. Secondary issues are concerns of security/vandalism (why have admin rights handed out to people who don't use them?) and of bookkeeping (how many active admins do we really have, and do we need more?). For example, admin rights could be revoked if the user in question has been inactive for >3 months. The user could then perhaps reapply for admin rights using the standard procedure, after having been active again for some time (say, 4 weeks), during which he could re-familiarize with the rules. -- Cid Highwind 16:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- First, I think your clarification was a good thing to do.
- Second, I think it is reasonable to suspend/rescind admin status after a period of time, anywhere between 3 and 6 months. I think the time period should be long enough to weed out truly inactive people and not too short as to drop users who have not been around for some reason and intend to return. I think restoring previously lost admin status could be the one instance where you could nominate yourself, unless it was rescinded for poor behavior.
- I would first suggest (regarding the idea of a policy) that two users, including at least one other admin, be required to nominate someone for removal of admin status. I think this(or something similar) would help prevent abuse or frivolous nominations. --31dot 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Cid, I agree with your changes in language to the admin page, obviously. As someone whose job it is to enforce policy, it only makes sense that you have an understanding of that policy. I still question whether there is a need for the "months of absence" removal of status. As I said in a previous discussion on this, I feel it is a solution in search of a problem, not a problem needing a solution. We have had admins return after extended absences, such as Harry, Alan, Jaz, AJ, Enzo, and others. While we have occasionally had problems on their return, none of them seem related to "misunderstanding policy or changes in policy," all were more problems with behavior of the person, and all for the most part have been incredibly minor and settled in a matter of minutes or hours. That's just my two cents, I genuinely don't think it is a problem in need of an automatic solution.
31Dot, I agree with a lot of what you have said in terms of a proposed policy, but I differ with you on a number of sections.
- It definitely needs to have a clear reason for nomination, with specific examples (including links) of improper behavior.
- It should also be made clear on what grounds someone can be removed, such as gross violations of policy (not something little like forgetting to indent, or once carrying out a deletion too early), clear abuse of admin tools (especially in a case where other admins simply would not have acted, so we aren't just talking about protecting a page they are involved in editing, we are talking blocking someone for personal reasons others would not have blocked for, or repeated behavior of protecting an article for personal reasons others would not have done so, etc.).
- I'm a bit dubious of the "repeated offenses only" idea, in general it sounds good, but there are cases where the action may be so extreme as to warrant action based on one offense. I'd rather leave it to the voting process to decide that on a case by case basis.
- I'm going to disagree with you outright on the process itself being stricter than the nomination to be an administrator. It should be easier to loose power for improper behavior than to get power through years of good behavior. Hell, our process is already so strict (requiring another person to nominate you, and 100% unanimous consent in a vote) that just about the only way to make it stricter would be to only allow administrators to participate in the vote. To me, this would encourage a possible clique situation, and definitely give a public perception of a "cabal" situation (whether it truly exists or not).
- I'd propose, instead, that anyone meeting the requirements to vote be able to put someone up for nomination of removal (sounds so wrong using "nomination" that way), that the nomination must include the criteria I said above (specific examples, links) or be dismissed out of hand by a bureaucrat, and require a super majority of either 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the voting group, that the vote only be open to those with a clear editing history (under the same rules we have to FA nominations), and that regardless of the outcome, the vote be tossed out completely and nomination dismissed if it is discovered that sockpuppets were used at all to vote against the admin. I'd also propose that there be a minimum number of votes in a set period, say at least 6 votes over a week. That would mean a passage would need something like at least 4 people in support, and only 2 people that could be found to defend said admin.
- Yes, this might open us up for some "frivolous," but then we already have a system that can have the same for admin nominations, for FA nominations, etc. I think that rather than coming up with a system that does not allow frivolous nominations to be made (which I think would generally be a rarity anyways), the goal should be to make a system where frivolous nominations are unlikely to pass. I think I've done that.
I'm going to write up a prototype page in my userspace over the next couple of days on this. Maybe even including a mock example of how it would work. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I look forward to your prototype. I was considering doing something similar myself but if you're going to do one it seems kind of redundant to have two; I'll wait to see what yours looks like.
- Most of my ideas were just brainstorms to start the discussion, and not hard and fast proposals on my part. I actually agree with most of your points about them:
- The reasons you give as grounds for a nomination I think are exactly correct.
- As for the strictness of the process, I think when I said stricter I was thinking that more people should be required to participate, but you made an good point that criteria could be deliberated during the voting/discussion process. You also covered participation with your minimum votes idea.
- I agree with your voting criteria suggestions: same rules as FA nominations, a supermajority(I would agree with ¾), automatic throwout by a bureaucrat of blatantly frivolous nominations, and a certain number of votes in a week(I agree with 6 in a week)--31dot 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I was almost tempted to simply duck out of this one, but I think I'll weigh in. A couple issues I want to bring up. Regardless of what policy we decide to set in place, I don't think any action should be taken against Defiant at the moment. Even if we pass some kind of "bad behavior removal policy" and even if it is decided by the community that this new applies to Defiant (I don't really know what transpired) I think there's a pretty basic principle of justice that we shouldn't retroactively enact laws.
- Secondly, there are pros and cons of simply automatically de-adminning people (like myself) who take long absents. Obviously I'm a little biased here, since I take some very extended leaves of absence. On the pro side, I think it de-mystifies admin, rather than some title for life, it makes it a real reflection of current participation. On the con side, I do think returning admins (myself included) contribute positively. I'll be the first to admit, I'm usually rusty when I first come back, and as a result, I try to use a degree of self-censorship (I try not carry out blocks, deletes, et cetera in my first week or so back, except in really obvious cases). But once that period is over, I think people like myself, Alan, and others who've taken hiatuses of various lengths can continue to be positive community members. I think in general I reject the notion that people need to be super-active in order to be positive here, but I would definitely understand if the community decides that this no longer warrants sysop powers. Of course, if we should pass such a rule, I should of obviously be the first to be de-sysoped (and of course I would continue to edit as a regular contributor). --- Jaz 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- There is one thing about this thread that I find particularly unnerving, no insulting regarding the recurring theme at the beginning of this thread revolving around various individuals particular dislike for me. I find that extremely rude, especially in justifying a discussion like this. As if everyone else here is perfect in their own right. Get real. All comments like that do is spread seeds of discourse and potential bias for indifferent or new users, etc. However, if those were your motives, then congratulations are in order, otherwise, uncool, very uncool. --Alan 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to. I made no comments regarding your behavior, your actions as an administrator, your following polices, etc., in opening this thread. I made a single light hearted comment later, but with the intention of steering this thread away from being about you, since it wasn't. The only reason I included anything about our disagreements in the past, and the fact that we often do not see "eye to eye" was to dispel any notion that this was an action of some "inside club" of people who just like you, Alan, and are only acting because we like you. In discussing the actual policy itself, and recommendations pertaining to it, we've made no mention of you at all except in a complimentary fashion about how when you returned once from an absence, you did not show any difficulty continuing your job as an admin and enforcing policies. Nor, should I add, did I present myself as a saint (not that it matters anyways, my behavior issues are not justification for anyone else, especially since I am not an admin). If you are referring to our arguments over the last few days on IRC, then I hate to say it, but "tough." I've been careful to keep that on IRC, and not bring it onto MA. As you pointed out earlier this evening, you can always put me on "ignore," right? --OuroborosCobra talk 23:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I did not mean to offend you, and I do apologize for it. I too only mentioned you insofar as I was not talking on behalf of you or protecting you personally; I was somneone who came along and saw that you were wrongly blocked. I certainly am not perfect and do not claim to be.--31dot 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I, too, thought certain users' references to their dislike for Alan was in poor taste and unneeded. If they were meant to be innocent jabs or even compliments, I didn't really get that, and it's clear Alan didn't, either. I also don't really understand what all the dislike is about, anyway. Yes, he's sarcastic, but he's a good guy, IMO, and a damn good contributor. Certain people may not agree with his sarcastic style of commenting, but he has never breached policy (although some claim he has, I have found no direct evidence of it), plus he has over 98,000 edits, so, yah. Anyway, Alan's point still stands, let's try to leave personal dislike for other users out of the forums. It's counter-productive and disrespectful, to boot. --From Andoria with Love 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've outlined specific examples (with links) of Alan's violation of policy over a year ago elsewhere. 98,000 edits is not justification for anything, unless you can find me the policy that gives an edit threshold at which the rules no longer belong to you. Regardless, this thread isn't about Alan. I'd appreciate if you stopped turning it to be about him. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I know, I saw, I just didn't really see where the violation came in. You're right, though, this forum isn't about Alan, by apologies on that. I just thought I'd speak my mind on the subject before we fully moved on. --From Andoria with Love 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
We'd already moved on, and now this page has become so cluttered that discussing an actual policy, which is needed, is going to be very hard to have happen. Gee, thanks. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome, and thank you for further cluttering the page to tell us it's cluttered. :) The main reason for my concern is, if this proposal goes through, I'm sure you will go after Alan and Defiant may follow suit. That said, in light of certain actions I would say a removal from adminship policy is definitely warranted. I just hope I'm wrong that you don't have some ulterior motive in supporting this proposal. --From Andoria with Love 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
You are incorrect. As I even said at the beginning, I have not seen anything recent, and it makes no sense what so ever to go after Alan for something from a year ago. That Alan and I do not get along is not grounds for his removal from being an administrator, certainly not by what I proposed. That Alan and I argue regularly on IRC is immaterial to his performance as an administrator on site. Defiant may follow suit, but he would not win any such nomination (I would vote in defense of Alan, and from this thread and situation it is obvious that you, 31dot, and Cid would so the same). If anything, Defiant would be putting nails in his own coffin. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's very hard not to take the above as personal, OuroborosCobra! Both I and Alan have suggested that this forum not name individuals nor criticize their possible faults, but instead discuss the possibility of the "Removal from adminship" system. Anything else is personal and is veering into "attacking" behavior! --Defiant 01:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Alan suggested no such thing, and if you don't like your behavior being called out, try not grossly abusing and misusing administrator tools. Yes, you have been called out, because you were a terrible example of how MA editors, let alone admins, are supposed to behave. This thread and the policy suggested was created in direct response to a need created by your actions. Even Cid called you out on them. I don't expect you to accept that, nor does it matter to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Quote: "There is one thing about this thread that I find particularly unnerving, no insulting regarding the recurring theme at the beginning of this thread revolving around various individuals particular dislike for me. I find that extremely rude, especially in justifying a discussion like this. As if everyone else here is perfect in their own right. Get real. All comments like that do is spread seeds of discourse and potential bias for indifferent or new users, etc. However, if those were your motives, then congratulations are in order, otherwise, uncool, very uncool." This disproves your theory that Alan didn't suggest/ask that this forum not name individuals nor criticize their possible faults. Please stop making this personal - it's not about me, nor any other particular editor, and never has been, so please refrain from your personal attacks! Back to topic, I agree with the idea, suggested above, that this should apply to users who obtain admin status and then disappear for (a) prolonged period(s) of time! --Defiant 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It says that he didn't find it cool. It says nothing about what was said about you, it says nothing about the suggested policy at all and therefore says nothing about the thread discussing that, as opposed to individuals actions. It is one thing, and one thing only, a defense of himself. As I made this thread and the proposed policy, I definitely know better than you what it is about, and it is most definitely about you. You screwed up, you have been told this by other administrators, and by the bureaucrat, and it is your screwing up that has highlighted the need for this policy (unlike the suggested policy of removing inactive admins). I entirely oppose your idea that this policy only apply to admins who have been absent and then return, and then screw up. Whether someone is abusing their authority has nothing to do with whether it comes after vacationing in Tahiti or not. Also, can you stop abusing the exclamation point? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I can use punctuation in whichever way I choose on talk pages, as it's not personally insulting to anyone! However, I'll choose to respect your wishes. As for Alan's statement being "only" a defense of himself, he stated, "All comments like that do is spread seeds of discourse and potential bias for indifferent or new users, etc." His reply was clearly therefore about more than a specific case, since he generalizes it by stating, "All comments like that[....]" Also, if you reread what I state in my last post, you'll see that I did not suggest the condition of absence as the only condition, but it seems like you maybe didn't understand that. That's okay and I'm not about to attack you for it, as you have done to me. I'm sure the other admins will deal with your behavior accordingly. --Defiant 02:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Dude, you've attacked me, 31dot, and Alan just as much, if not more, than we've ever said anything about you during our entire editing careers, let alone in the last few days. You are also pulling one sentence out and quoting it out of context. In addition, while you have the legal freedom of speech to abuse punctuation any way you want, you should not expect yourself to be taken seriously when your composure and decorum is so marred by your method of communication in this, a text only medium. We can't see the look on your face, we can't see your body language, and when you misuse exclamation points every other sentence, you have to accept the low level of maturity and high level of "whineyness" that comes off as. I'm glad you are reconsidering how you are going to use your English. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair point, OuroborosCobra - it's not always easy to tell when people are joking, being sarcastic, etc. when not speaking in-person. I would suggest that all personal attacks, insults, etc. stop here - in the words of Picard, "here, no further"! :) Just because one user unintentionally attacks a second editor, that doesn't mean that the second editor should respond in kind. --Defiant 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not changing a lick of what I have said or behaved, I have not broken policy by pointing out your abuse of administrator rights anymore than when any of us go to a vandals talk page and warn them to stop vandalizing. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify that I'm not asking you to change what has happened in the past, only that the maliciousness be discontinued immediately. I'm trying to extend an olive branch to you (as I have done with Alan and Cid Highwind, recently). My intention has never been to personally attack anyone and I've made my utmost effort to avoid doing so. I admit that I made a mistake in banning Alan earlier, as it was against the rules and regulations, and have already admitted this elsewhere. I certainly don't think it's productive to launch into a witch-hunt against me for making this mistake, though, as I've been an admin for four years and never been personally attacked by so admins in all the time I've been here. I'm willing to try to come to an amicable solution and see no reason why this wouldn't be true of every other admin. --Defiant 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll re-iterate to you, I've done nothing wrong in my treatment of you, I will not change what I have done or how I will continue to behave. I have not been malicious towards you, I have not done something like call you an "ass" or "idiot," I have pointed out specific examples of your misuse of administrator rights. If you do not like me doing that, don't misuse administrator rights. I do not accept your "olive branch," as I have done nothing wrong that needs changing. I do find it humorous you claim you've never been attacked by admins in all the time you've been here, since your very talk page shows you complaining about supposedly being attacked three years ago. Lastly, as I told you before, I'm not an admin. Not that it matters, being an admin yourself does not give you special rights over me, only some tools I do not have. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- You guys realize that it is just the 3 of you discussing here your personal feelings/grudges/dislikes for Alan and Defiant, right? You're not speaking for the community here. Nit picking and splitting hairs over semantics and punctuation (I didnt read all of it). This is supposed to be a community and people are supposed to come here because they enjoy Star Trek. What's up with these attacks every now and then and constantly creating adversity and animosity? This just makes this an uncomfortable place to be and is a disruption.
- Anyway, I will stay out of this cause it reeks of pretty much all the fugly things you dont want in a place like this; it is biased and not objective at all. But let me just say this: Alan is a fabulous contributor. He really is helping to expand MA and he truly contributes to make this site better. His presence and contributions to MA are an asset from what I have observed thus far and he has always been very polite and courteous and helpful. I cant believe anyone would think of getting rid of him here as an admin and attacking him based on obscure evidence from last year or whatever. What is this, a witch hunt? The entire premise of this thread is based on personal dislike and personal attacks and insults, creating animosity and just a negative atmosphere. Why dont you all just meet up at the Star Trek Convention in Vegas and see each other in person. Makes getting along easier. – Distantlycharmed 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Did you actually read any of this before commenting? No one, not a single person, suggested removing Alan for anything. Not a thing. Well, except for from Defiant, and this thread was started because of his wrongful and policy violating actions against Alan. This entire thread is based on the action of one administrator (Defiant), out of the blue and with absolutely no warning or stated reason or anything, suddenly banning Alan for a month. This thread is in defense of Alan, and his wrongful block from editing, and deciding how to deal with administrator abuse of power (which Alan is not being accused of, and is in fact the VICTIM of). Seriously, you could not have gotten this thread any more wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Arguing kills my buzz...– Distantlycharmed 04:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll bet. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think one thing that some people may be forgetting is that we should all be here for fun and are united in our interests in Star Trek. The matter that supposedly started this thread (the same issue that has been stated for its continued existence) has otherwise been resolved, with a warning issued to the guilty party (myself) and apologies from the guilty party both made and apparently accepted by others. If anyone has any further problems, communication should be conducted via the relevant user talk pages, so we can avoid the form of witch-hunt (against anyone) that Distantlycharmed mentioned. That goes for both myself and Alan - forum posts should not contain personal attacks, regardless of who they are targeted at. --Defiant 09:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)