|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.|
Much of the criticism of Wikipedia centers around abuse of admin powers. This became an issue in at least one candidate's statement in the recent ArbCom election. This policy proposal is intended to ensure that admin powers are not used in order to gain the upper hand in content disputes.
It has long been Wikipedia policy that admins may not protect a page where they are involved in a content dispute. This policy will now be broadened to include blocks and bans of other editors with whom an admin is engaged in a dispute.
The proposed remedy is as follows: should a user be blocked, he may follow the normal appeal procedure of placing the "Unblock" template on his user talk page. However, if the blocked editor can demonstrate that the admin who blocked him was involved in a content dispute with him prior to the block, the blocked editor enjoys the presumption of innocence and should be unblocked until a new policy violation draws the attention of a neutral admin.
If an admin feels that an editor, with whom he is engaged in a content dispute, has committed a blockable offense, the admin may place a notice on the Administrator's Incident Board to draw it to the attention of an uninvolved party. To maintain the appearance of propriety, the uninvolved party should be genuinely uninvolved, and not one who is a long-standing ally of the requesting admin in other content disputes.