Forum:Vote: Permaban Reviews

Forums: Index > Wiki proposals and applications > Vote: Permaban Reviews

Hi Folks,

Following this Permaban Reviews Discussion, I'd like to bring the following vote up. Given the lack of interest in the review on ban, I'll only be bringing the 12 month review to a vote.

Just to review, here is my proposal:

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 a bureaucrat's 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.

Poll

Poll finished on 7:01 pm October 21, 2012 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Yes

1. Agent c (talk) 19:02, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
2. ^{"Respect and Honor"} 19:07, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
3. Excellent idea, I give it my fullest support. --Skire (talk) 21:40, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
4. I support a one time review of a perma-ban, though I still believe that four chances does prove the intent of a user it doesn't mean that later they might have changed tact. Giving them a chance to prove they have does seem fair. Gothic Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 19:01, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
5. I think people should get their second chance after being perma banned. Who knows, people can change right? - CC 00:21, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
6. Yeah, sure. I guess it's worth checking up on people, just in case or whatever. Go for it.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:41, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
7. Without a doubt, the best course of action. -- ^{"This is my road, you'll walk it as I say"} 20:23, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
8. Seems a good way, despite a difficult one. Energy X ∞ 20:47, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
9. Sensible to me, I like it. -- 22:51, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
10. --^Talk 23:06, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
11. Just as long as they remember why there were banned and play by the rules File:Vault-Tec Circle.png ^{"Editing With Triple S Technology!"} 6:32, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
12. Seems fair enough. 17:35, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
13. --Kastera ^(talk) 17:49, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
14. 12 Months would feel like a long time. Gives them plenty to think about. The BC's acception is a great idea.
15. This is a great revision. I'm fully behind it. --C'n-Frankie ^-ArroyoTalk 20:08, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. After thinking about my previous vote, I came to realize that while I can't really pick apart this thing for problems, I just don't understand what it really has going in its favor either. Who would use this service? In almost every case a permaban has been for numerous infractions too, erm... heinous to allow anything less. And even then they are rare. How many people will seriously bring a ban up to review, and what fraction of that will pass? I seriously doubt this proposal will ever be of any use. Saint Pain was the only permaban I would ever think about repealing myself, and the community has already said what they though. Allowing a one year review would just be a repeat. Might I Say You're Looking Fit As a Fiddle! 18:12, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
2. Here is no data (numbers) concerning permaban/permaban review question. More important problem would be qualification for permaban (eg. unquestionable vandalism vs some editing policy majority administrators don't like). --dotz (talk) 18:23, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Just in case this occurs to anyone else, I would not expect Pains' review to to count towards the 1 review limit as it would predate the implementation of policy if it passes.. Agent c (talk) 19:12, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Just to be fair, and although this was not suggested by any comment on the review thread, I also offer the following counter proposal. Please only vote yes on one or the other

Permabans should never be reviewed.

Yes

1. I feel if you fucked up enough, you don't deserve a review of your permaban. ^{Hawk da Barber 2012 - BSHU Graduate} 17:57, October 20, 2012 (UTC)
2. _Tagaziel ^(call!)

Comments

As sort of could be expected, I'm leaning towards favoring this proposal. In some exceptional cases a return, from the wiki or chat, should be possible I think. And Agent c has mentioned so many terms for one to pass, it will be (very) difficult and only a few will be able to meet the requirements. Didn't see one term in your proposal. If someone is banned from chat, continuing with editing (or in other ways showing you still care for this community and don't hold a real grudge) also counts in favor, in case of a review after a year. Jspoel 23:43, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

The list of actions that a bureaucrat can consider is meant to be non exclusive, so if you were the investigating bureaucrat you could consider a good edit record here, or at another wiki, (those could be considered "Good acts" also) Agent c (talk) 00:03, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

---

Strangely, I feel that a community appeal on the forum in regards to lifting a specific perma-ban user is unneeded. If a bureaucrat thinks that the offender should be granted a second chance, they should unbanned, but placed on some kind of probation (for a month, maybe) to monitor their intent. If they slip up once more, they will be banned permanently (with no other chance of appeal) again. I base this off a similar version of the U.S. crime/probation system. Individual citizens don't determine of they get a second chance; it's up to bureaucrats within the justice system that determine that. If a criminal breaks the rules of their probation, they're re-arrested and sentenced to a longer time. --Kastera ^(talk) 17:56, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

The entire idea that there should be a "review" in the first place is ridiculous. Either you have permanent bans and no possibility to appeal them, or you make them temporary. If it's the latter, they should be made at the Bureaucrat's discretion, not subject to a public vote, after passing a long list of needless requirements. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 18:08, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

There is no "long list" of needless requirements, I think you misunderstand the wording. The wording says "The Bureaucrat may wish to examine the following...", key word there being "may", rather than "must" - its a list of suggested things to evaluate and the bureaucrat is required to use none of them to determine if any clemency is warranted. The only actual requirements to get unbanned is "convince a bureaucrat to open a review" and "pass a vote, or have noone object." - 2, as short as a list can be whilst still being a list. Agent c (talk) 18:19, October 20, 2012 (UTC)

Result

I'm extending the vote for another day. I'd like to see a few more active editors weight in on this. It's a very important issue that will effect the way we deal with bans, and I would like to see everyone's input. The Gunny   17:13, October 20, 2012 (UTC)