Hi folks, I'm hoping this will go down similar to the Chat rules review thread.
In light of another recent discussion, regarding the applicability of a recent ban, and whether or not bans should be reviewed (and what process should be available to them, in a fair way that won't result in accusations of favouritism.
I'd like to suggest the following be looked at for the permaban process.
Review of Permabans on sentencingEdit
I'd like to suggest the following to review permaban placement.
On Application of a Permaban, the sentencing admin* should do the following:
- If the offence occurred in chat, the sentencing admin should take an immediate capture of logs for any warnings, kicks and the eventual ban faced that day.
- The situation should be passed to another admin who will review the users previous bans and warnings, and confirm that they have exceeded the maximum number of bans.
- The admin will also review the most recent ban, and ensure the rules have been broken. They should also deal with any appeal that follows.
- As a permaban should only be issued after the maximum number of bans, the sentence itself should not be reviewed.
- This does not apply to sockpuppets,
This ensures that a permaban is only issued when the maximum bans have been reached, and any appeals are delt with by a neutral person.
Clemency / ParoleEdit
In order to ensure that certain users arent given special treatment, I'd like to suggest the following as the official permaban review policy.
Any user who has been permanently banned from the Wiki, or from chat may request this be lifted after 12 months has passed from their last rules infraction (this includes multiple accounts).
- This request should be made to a Bureaucrat, ideally on their talk page. Where this is not possible it should be made on the users own talk page. Where both of these is not possible, or no response is received after a timely period, this should be relayed via their wall on Community Central.
- When evaluating the request the Bureaucrat is not obliged to assume good faith, where they believe there is a reason for not extending this courtesy, but should be prepared to listen with an open mind.
- The Bureaucrat may wish to examine the following when evaluating the request (this list is non exhaustive):
- The events that lead to the final ban
- Any attempts to circumvent the ban
- The length of time that has passed
- Any extenuating circumstances that may have applied at the time of the final ban (Issues in personal life, etc).
- The users good acts prior to the ban
- Any personal growth the user has done since the ban
- Their behaviour on other Wikia wikis
- If the Bureaucrat believes that clemency is warranted, they may start a forum thread discussing the users status. This thread should first be opened as a discussion for at least a week. If there is no objection, the ban may be lifted at this time; if there is an objection the result should go to a poll
- The Bureaucrat may temporarily lift wiki bans at their discretion to allow for the user to argue their own case. The user however is expected to not edit any other pages other than their own talk page (or talk pages to those who have posted on theirs), and the discussion page itself; any messages should relate to their own hearing only. Any breach of this may result in the discussion immediately being closed (and resolved in the negative) at the Bureaucrat's discretion.
- Bans are only to be reviewed once.
- The user may immediately be permabanned if they are involved in all but the most trivial offences.
- Any special rights held by the user will not be reapplied.
I'm for it. A nice revision.-- A Safe People is a Strong People! 22:40, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for a second chance, but granting parole after the commission of a 4th ban worthy act already seems very lenient. Is it safe to assume that if a user has been reinstated once, further violation will lead to a "true" life ban without the option of parole? XxSick DemonxX (talk) 06:01, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
It seems that I'm a little late into this discussion, but I'd like to put in some of my own thoughts here. Granting a second chance only really works for certain types of people, and I see that that has been covered in the consideration outlines for the bureaucrats above, but It is my personal opinion that Vandalism, especially repeated offenses and examples thereof should not receive a second chance. Then again I'm not a bureaucrat so it's not my say. ---bleep196- (talk) 22:45, November 17, 2012 (UTC)