User:D.M.N./Three Strikes and You're Out
 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
The Three Strikes and You're Out system is a current policy proposal, that has not yet been finalised. Below is a structure for the system. However, it is not yet complete, requiring further discussion. Please add your good-faith constructive comments to the discussion page. Thanks.
Proposal
[edit]This proposal is entitled "Three Strikes and You're Out". Any admin, after a "wrong action" is commited will recieve what we will call "a strike". Should an admin receive three strikes in a two month period, they will be required to go back to RFA, going through the adminship process again. However, if any of the strikes is considered by community consensus to be in bad-faith and disruptive, the strike will be dismissed.
What is considered a "strike"
[edit]Many actions that an admin takes that are seen as controversial may be given a strike. Before giving the admin a strike, please try and discuss it with the admin first. However, a strike will only be given with community consensus.
Below is an example of a consensus:
- User A reports Admin A for personal attacks.
- User B suggests that Admin A is given a strike.
- User C, User D and Admin B (all uninvolved) agree with User B.
- Admin C gives Admin A a strike, with a link to the discussion.
If a strike appears to be given in bad faith, the strike may be removed with prior discussion from fellow Wikipedians. If it is patently obvious it is in bad-faith (for instance if it is a user's first edit), remove the strike, and block the user for Disruption.
How the system works
[edit]Should an admin do a wrong action once, they would be given a first strike. Should they commit an offence again, they will receive a second strike. Should they yet again do a wrong action (or it even could be simply edit warring - to something such as using the tools to harrass others); they will recieve a third and final warning. Because of this they will be notified via their third warning that an RFA will open on them. Should they fail the RFA, their admin tools will be taken off them. However only strikes should be given by un-involved administrators or good-faith editors. If any strikes are found to be in bad-faith the strike should be discussed and removed in due course if found to be in bad-faith.
After the third strike, the administrator must be directed back to Request for Adminship, where it will be determined whether his adminship status should remain, or get took away. If the adminship is taken away, the user may reapply for adminship in the future. If the adminship remains though, the three-strikes rule would no longer apply, and they instead would go through the proceedure as set out at Dispute Resolution if they do make bad-faith maneuveures.