Board Thread:Wiki Improvement/@comment-27765057-20141030002853

I'm here to get a new policy written up. Note that this is similar to the Probation Policy that Memph had wanted to establish nearly two years ago (and yes, I am aware on how that ended). Basically, it is my belief that there have been occasions when users have been banned unfairly or for unreasonable lengths of time and then not allowed to defend themselves.

The Policy:

1. The Basics

If a user is banned from the chat room or the wiki itself for the length of a week or longer, they are entitled to request an appeal to the ban on the basis that 1) they had not broken a rule or 2) their ban was unreasonable.

In order to be able to formally request an appeal, admins are required to allow users who have been blocked from the wiki for the length of a week or longer to edit their talk pages. An admin is allowed to remove this ability if they find that the user is using their talkpage to perform misconduct.

All users may request appeals to all bans of the aforementioned length. However, there is a limit to the number of appeals they can make concerning a specific ban. As a rule of thumb, one week-one month is one appeal, three months -one year is two appeals, and an infinite ban is three appeals.

During a ban, if a user has been proven to have used a sockpuppet, then one of their appeals will become void for each sockpuppet account. The only exception to this is if an admin did not allow them to edit their talkpage so that they had the chance to request an appeal in the first place. The act of sockpuppetting should not be used as evidence against the user in most circumstances during an appeal process.

2. The Process

A user that wishes to request an appeal must first leave a message on an admin's or their own (in the case that they are blocked) talkpage. The message should include their reason for the request (what basis) and why they believe that their ban should be appealed. If they have any evidence that would support their claims, it should be provided with the message.

When an appeal is requested, the first thing that occurs is a public vote from the admins on whether they should go with the appeal. They must include a reason with their votes. If an admin is unavailable, a randomly-chosen user with an edit count of at least 300 and having been around for at least three months will vote in their place.

If the appeal is approved, then the user-in-question will be temporarily unbanned so that they can partake in the appeal process. If they are legitimately banned or continuously perform misconduct for any reason during the process, the appeal will immediately become void.

After the appeal is approved, a blog will be created by an admin that allows both the user-in-question and any other user to provide evidence/and or testimony that suggests whether or not the appeal should be ruled for. This part of the process will last about five days.

After that, a final vote will be conducted by the admins along with three neutral users that meet the previously-mentioned requirements.

The results of the vote is final.

Note: If it is decided through voting that the user-in-question's ban was unreasonable, then their ban length will be reduced rather than being unbanned.

This is what I have so far, let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions. 