This is a project page for proposals to change and modify the current admin "policy". This is not a final draft, and input is welcome on the talk page.
Removal of inactive admins Edit
"Bureaucrats will remove admins privileges from accounts that have been inactive for six months. This is entirely a housekeeping procedure, and upon their return any "inactive" admin will be reinstated at their request."
Admin removal Edit
Administrators on Memory Alpha are expected to know and follow Memory Alpha's policies and guidelines as well as uphold the highest standards of conduct. In the event an archivist feels that an admin has not met this standard, they should request that another admin intervene. In most cases, the intervention of another admin should be enough to resolve the situation.
If the contacted admin feels the situation is serious enough to require censuring the admin in question, they should contact at least two other admins about it and request input. If at least three admins agree that there was a breach of conduct, the admin in question may be asked to take some time off from editing, in the form of a block, to let the situation cool down.
If these solutions fail to resolve the situation, an archivist may call for the removal of the admins sysop rights by creating a Ten Forward forum post (the suggested title is "Removal of admin rights for <USERNAME>") with sections for Supporting and Opposing votes, as well as Comments. The archivist must clearly explain why the admin in question should have their sysop rights removed based on the following criteria:
The criteria for the removal of sysop rights are:
- Systematic or gross violations of Memory Alpha policies; and/or
- Inappropriate use of administrative powers against another user
Invalid criteria for the removal of sysop rights include (but are not limited to):
- Personal dislike of the administrator; or
- Disagreement with valid actions of the administrator; or
- Incidental, minor, or technical violations of policies
Members of the community with at least 100 significant edits who have been registered for more than two weeks can participate in the discussion and vote. The admin in question and the archivist suggesting removal can not vote. A rationale should be provided with each vote, and any votes with clearly no connection to this project or based on the criteria can be considered invalid.
Bureaucrats and non-involved admins are expected to oversee any call for removal to ensure that it is fair. This will include (but is not limited to):
- Removal of discussions based on invalid criteria.
- Removal of votes from users who do not meet the criteria to vote.
- Removal of any sock puppet votes and votes made by the sock puppet creator(s). In extreme situations where it is felt that a discussion has been tainted by an excess of sock puppets, the discussion may be immediately closed as unsuccessful.
After seven days, the following results are possible:
- Fewer than eight votes – the discussion may be extended to a total of fourteen days to gain more votes. If there are still less than eight votes at that time, the vote is considered unsuccessful and the forum should be locked.
- At least eight votes, with less than three-quarters in support of removal – the vote is considered unsuccessful and the forum should be locked.
- At least eight votes, including at least one administrator, with three-quarters or more in support of removal – the call for removal is successful and the forum should be locked. A bureaucrat will then remove the sysop rights of the admin in question. That person may not be renominated for administrator status for at least a year.
Change to nominations Edit
"A rationale should be provided with each vote. Any objection with no clear connection to this project, or one that regards issues more than two years old, can be considered invalid."