|
|
 | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
 | This page in a nutshell: A process which provides for a community discussion as a sort of "reverse RfA". |
Request for removal of adminship (RRA) is a process which allows the community to make a motion of no confidence in an administrator who has shown a pattern of inappropriate behavior in using the entrusted administrative tools and/or in performing the associated responsibilities of adminship. Once the nomination is certified (see below), this process exists only to address (in relation to the assertions of the contributors to this process) the question, will the community continue to entrust this individual with the tools and responsibilities of adminship?
This process is not to be used to address editorial action that does not directly involve the tools or related responsibilities of adminship. Other existing processes which review editorial action, should be used instead.
RRA is an adjunct process. It does not replace or remove any other ways of removing adminship.
Process[edit]
Nomination
The nomination section is similar to an RFC/Admin. However, while any editor may certify the nomination, there is a minimum requirement of certification by three experienced administrators (who have at least one year of experience since their first administrative action).
Once a party has proposed or certified an RRA, that party may not propose or certify another RRA for a period of 12 months, although the party may participate in proceedings certified by others.
The nominee may request at the bureaucrats noticeboard to delay discussion for up to 7 days due to real life concerns. But this also means that they will not be taking any admin actions in the meantime. If they do, any bureaucrat may immediately temporarily remove adminship from the editor, which may only be restored pending the result of the RRA, or Arbcom action.
Discussion
The discussion is similar to an RfA, including participation requirements, discussion length and format, with certification replacing the nomination sections, and with other cosmetic changes as the community sees fit.
Each participant should state their reasons, while selecting one of the following options or similar:
- Oppose / Retain / No action - to assert that removal of adminship would be inappropriate in this instance.
- Advise the admin - to re-affirm policy or to note presumably simple, easily correctable, mistakes or misunderstandings.
- Admonish the admin - to make it clear that the actions which led to this nomination were clearly inappropriate, but not sufficiently serious enough to warrant removal of adminship in this instance.
- Support / Remove / Desysop - to assert that removal of adminship would be appropriate in this instance.
- Neutral
To be clear, participants who declare "Advise" or "Admonish" are opposing removal of adminship.
Determining consensus
Determining consensus of an RRA follows the same standards as RfA, except as noted in the following.
The process can only be closed by an uninvolved bureaucrat regardless of obvious outcome. Discretion is given solely to the bureaucrat closing the process, which includes determining the weight of the comments of any participant—for example, whether to completely discount one. Possible results are within the discretion of the closing bureaucrat and are generally limited to one of the following:
- Unsuccessful
- Unsuccessful – The administrator is advised: X
- Unsuccessful – The administrator is admonished: X
- Successful
To determine consensus that the request was successful, the support to desysop must outweigh the combination of those who oppose and those who advise and those who admonish.
If the RRA is determined successful by the bureaucrat, then adminship is immediately removed from the nominated admin. The closing bureaucrat will notify the community by a posting at WP:AN, and also notify Arbcom of the results using a method of their choosing.
The editor may re-request adminship of the community at any time through the regular process (WP:RFA).
Arbcom review
While not required to do so, the editor has up to 30 days to request review by The Arbitration Committee ("Arbcom"), per existing policy that de-sysopping is under their remit. And Arbcom can of course independently choose to review as well.
Through the review process Arbcom may by motion:
- Endorse
- Endorse with clarifications on, rebuking of, or adding to, community advisement and/or admonishment
- Overturn – adminship is immediately restored
- Overturn with clarifications on, rebuking of, or adding to, community advisement and/or admonishment
- Reverse and remand for another RRA, or to re-open/continue the existing RRA, or to take the case themselves
While the method/system through which Arbcom reviews an RRA must obviously be on wiki for transparency reasons, the actual methods and systems for Arbcom to respond, void, or validate the process will be decided by Arbcom themselves.
Imposing additional sanction is outside the remit of this process, and would require Arbcom to act within its own processes/procedures, such as a summary motion or a full arbitration case.
Arbcom jurisdiction[edit]
The Arbitration Committee ("Arbcom") retains full jurisdiction over this process; this process should not be considered or construed to limit Arbcom's jurisdiction in any way. At any time, Arbcom may suspend, extend, or vacate the proceedings for any valid reason and issue a summary dismissal with or without prejudice, at their discretion. Arbcom may also at any time elect to supersede an RRA with their own processes or procedures.