Wikipedia:Administrative Standards Commission

The Administrative Standards Commission (ASC) is a proposed elected body that would appoint editors as administrators, supplementing or replacing the existing RfA process. Under the proposed system, anyone wishing to be granted administrative rights could make an application to ASC, which would decide whether an editor is suited to such rights. In addition, it is proposed that the remit of the ASC could be expanded to provide a forum for addressing complaints against administrators, and could have the ability to request that a bureaucrat revoke administrative rights.

Election and composition
The ASC would be composed of thirteen editors. Members of the ASC would be termed "Commissioners". Editors would be elected to serve on the Commission by the Wikipedia community in a process resembling elections to the Arbitration Committee. Commissioners would serve the community for a term of one year. Elections would be staggered to create overlapping terms, with six Commissioners elected in January of a given year, and seven elected in July. Seats on the Commission would be allocated on the following basis: In line with Wikipedia policies, the ASC would be able to create its own rules of order and procedure. A simple majority vote by the other Commissioners would be required to remove a Commissioner from his or her post. This would immediately trigger a new election. In extraordinary cases, the Arbitration Committee would be able to remove serving Commissioners from the ASC.
 * Six seats on the ASC would be reserved for administrators. These seats could be filled by any editor who has ever been an administrator, including former administrators. Any other user access level with the ability to delete and restore content would be included in this category.
 * Six seats on the ASC would be reserved for non-administrators. These seats can only be held by those who have never been an administrator.
 * One seat would be open to either administrators or non-administrators.

Appointing editors as administrators
Any autoconfirmed editor would be able to submit an application for administrative rights to the ASC, or to nominate another editor for candidacy. Upon receiving an application, the ASC would first decide whether said application had any merit, or if it should be rejected immediately. If the ASC decides to accept an application, they would begin to research the applicant's contribution history and discuss that user's merits amongst themselves. After the research phase is complete, the ASC would hold an internal vote on whether to appoint the applicant as an administrator. A simple majority of Commissioners in favour of an applicant would result in that applicant's appointment. A public report would then be issued, detailing the Commission's reasons for either appointing the applicant, or declining to appoint the applicant.

Searching for potential candidates
In addition to appointing administrators through the self-initiated applications process, the ASC would also search for appropriate candidates. Appropriate candidates would be asked if they wish to submit an application for administrative rights. Commissioners would assist these candidates with their applications, and continue to evaluate their contributions to Wikipedia on merit. Once such a candidate has submitted an application, the same procedure as detailed above would be followed.

Supervision and coaching
Commissioners would be able to provide guidance, coaching and mentoring to administrators. They would be able to scrutinise administrative actions, and offer advice and encouragement to administrators. In so doing, they would be able to address any potential problems with an administrator's behaviour, so as to avoid the need for sanctions or desysopping.

Implementation
If accepted by the community, this proposal would be implemented in stages. Firstly, the Commission would be established as a parallel to the existing RfA process. During a transitional period, both processes would continue to be used. After a period of time determined through community discussion, a widely-advertised RfC would be held to determine whether to retain the RfA process as an alternative to appointment by the Commission, or to close down RfA or the ASC.

Potential expansion of duties
It has been proposed that the duties of the Commission could be expanded to deal with matters of administrative review. An RfC on whether to expand the duties of the Commission could take place concurrently with the RfC on whether to close down RfA or the ASC, as specified above. The proposed expansion of duties is as follows:

Review of administrative actions
Any editor would be able to ask the ASC to review an administrator's actions. The editor would need to show that he or she tried to address any concerns with the administrator in question, and through the appropriate community processes, such as the administrators' noticeboard. Review by the ASC would be a last resort, similar to the way that the Arbitration Committee is the last resort for content and behaviour disputes. Upon receiving such a request, the ASC would first decide if there are grounds for a review. If the request is found to be groundless, it will be dismissed immediately. If the Commission concludes that the request has merit, they will research the concerns specified in the request, and discuss them amongst themselves. After the research phase is complete, the ASC would decide whether any action should be taken against the administrator, including the possibility of a revoking of administrative rights. An internal vote would be held on any proposed measures, with a simple majority of Commissioners in favour of an action required to implement it. The reasons for either action or inaction would be compiled into a public report, to be issued to the community at large.