User:Triona/Proposal for bureaucrat mediated administrator review

This has been rehashed several times in different forms, but it seems there is still a demand for the community for some form of desysopping that does not require an ArbCom sanction to perform, given the concern over the time it can take to obtain an ArbCom investigation and decision.

Rationale

 * When administrator permissions are used in an abusive and/or disruptive manner, those actions should be subject to review and possible sanctions.
 * The appointed body currently responsible for adjudicating such disputes is the Arbitration Committee which is also the "court of last resort" for most editing disputes, and may be too overburdened to examine an administrator's actions within timeframes that the community considers reasonable.
 * There is a considerable concern among administrators that all administrators working in controversial areas would be unfairly exposed and impaired by the threat of sanctions if the matter was purely one of consensus, as consensus is often mistaken for a popularity contest.
 * While granting of adminship has historically been by consensus, removal has been strictly for abuse, and this is a practice that should continue.
 * Desysopping is exceedingly rare in proportion to the number of administrators, and should continue to be rare.
 * Bureaucrats are one of the most logical sources of mediators and impartial judges for such disputes. They have critical, sensitive, but relatively low-volume responsibilities that specifically relate to permissions, and they are already appointed by the community with understanding of the sensitivity of their permissions.

Proposed policy

 * Editors in good standing may initiate a petition for the review of an administrator under specific circumstances. These petitions are to be reviewed regularly and frequently for their merits. The grounds under which a petition may be initiated are:
 * The administrator is flagrantly using administrator authority in a manner which is disruptive and inconsistent with policies applying to administrator actions.
 * The administrator is disregarding reasonable attempts at dispute resolution.
 * The administrator is engaging in ongoing wheel warring with other administrators.
 * The administrator is using their permissions to conduct bullying and intimidation against users they are engaged in a dispute with, or to silence critics. (Such as: Threatened or actual blocks that are inconsistent with policy and community standards, and especially any retaliation against good faith Dispute Resolution)
 * The administrator is using their permissions to override a legitimate sanction placed on them under established policy (unblocking themselves in any case other than an accidental, joke, or other unsubstantiated block)
 * The editors bringing forth the petition must have pursued dispute resolution, including at minimum talk page discussions between the editor and the administrator involved. and at least one form of community discussion appropriate to the incident (RFC, or AN/I)., and the activity continued without resolution.
 * The matter must involve the use of administrator tools, or a credible threat that they will be used in a retaliatory manner. Actions by the administrator that are done without the use of the administrator tools are not covered here, the normal dispute resolution channels and normal sanctions (if any) apply, however, see above regarding the abuse of the administrator tools to override or bypass such sanction.
 * A bureaucrat must certify that a petition has merit, that is, that the editors bringing forward the petition are in good standing, that the complaint is at least worth investigating on face value, and that dispute resolution was attempted.
 * A panel of no less than 3 active bureaucrats will review the arguments, make further investigations as needed and make a decision within a reasonable time, giving consideration to right of reply. This decision may include:
 * Letters of reprimand
 * Referral to the Arbitration Committee
 * Temporary removal of permissions, for a period of up to 3 months.
 * Binding reconfirmation (with permissions retained until conclusion)
 * Removal of permissions, with leave to reapply.
 * In no case will a matter decided by a panel of bureaucrats create a permanent disability for adminship, as that remedy would remain for the discretion of the Arbitration Committee
 * Decisions made under this policy would be subject to appeal to the Arbitration Committee, and administrators adversely affected by such a decision would have an explicit right to have a hearing before the Committee regarding restoration of permissions within a reasonable time frame.
 * Resignation of an administrator while such a process is ongoing may be considered "not in good standing".