Voting:Admin Team/Perm Bans - Resolved

Bach recently put up a vote to decide the fate of permanent banning, but after a short discussion she decided to take down the vote and move on. Personally I don't understand why she made this decision, but I feel that if the issue was worth voting on in the first place, and has yet to be resolved, we shouldn't back down in the face of whatever deterred Bach. Ignoring problems or controversies has never been and never will be an acceptable answer to those they concern.

Personally I saw neither of the proposed answers as the optimal solution, and so I'm going to be inserting what I see as the preferable option as number 3. This option will contain elements of the prior two, though introduces a few separate but important concepts. The other two will remain entirely the same.

Option 1
A permanent block should remain permanent no matter what, that's what permanent means.

Once a user is blocked, administrators will monitor their talk page for 1 month after the block is given. If they argue their block as being unfair or that the administrator who gave it skipped steps or gave it unfairly. The Administration team will look over all the facts carefully and hold a vote as to whether the block was handled fairly or not. If it's decided the block was not handled fairly (in case of the admin giving it being found to be bias, or that sufficient warnings or steps weren't followed per our policies) appropriate action will be taken on a case to case basis. (for instance if a user should have been given a temp block first, then the perm block will be moved to reasonably timed temp block). However, if after one month of the block, the user has not argued their case, they will have to wait 1 year before making any more pleas or arguments.

We will also make sure to word the policies (which have already been voted on) so they are clearer on what things constitute what level of warnings and what steps are to be taken. No drastic changes, just re-wording them so the meaning is clearer, and then I will set up a page with the new wording, and have every RB, Admin and crat sign them acknowledging that they understand the policy.

Option 2
A new addendum to the policy that will allow for one final chance if certain criteria is met and the wiki votes to allow it. The addendum will allow any user who has served 1 year of their permanent block, and in that time was never caught sock puppeting to get around the block, that they can request that the wiki vote on whether to give them one final chance to prove they've changed. Who gets to vote on this will change case by case, because after a year, there could easily be tons of new level 5's or even members of the admin team that were not around when the user who was blocked was, the only users who will get to vote will be users whose join date coincides with when the blocked user was active on the wiki. The users will be presented with a message from the user who would like another chance, as well as the information of the events surrounding their original ban, and any testimonials from users that are deemed pertinent in whether a final chance should or shouldn't be granted. If voted to stay banned, no more chances will be given, ever. If voted to be allowed ONE FINAL CHANCE. The user agrees to be on the wiki in a probationary capacity for the first 9 months (9 Months probation may seem harsh, but remember, if a user is granted a final chance, the fact they did stuff to ever warrant a perm ban can't be ignored), in that time ANY rule breaks will result in the perm ban being reinstituted and no chances for reprieve. However, at the end of the 9 months, if their behaviour is satisfactory and they clearly haven't done anything wrong, they will go back to regular user status. BUT they will never in the history of the wiki ever be allowed to hold any position of power on the wiki. Not rollback or chatmod, or anything.

Once a user is blocked, administrators will monitor their talk page for 1 month after the block is given. If they argue their block as being unfair or that the administrator who gave it skipped steps or gave it unfairly. The Administration team will look over all the facts carefully and hold a vote as to whether the block was handled fairly or not. If it's decided the block was not handled fairly (in case of the admin giving it being found to be bias, or that sufficient warnings or steps weren't followed per our policies) appropriate action will be taken on a case to case basis. (for instance if a user should have been given a temp block first, then the perm block will be moved to reasonably timed temp block). However, if after one month of the block, the user has not argued their case, they will have to wait 1 year before making any more pleas or arguments.

We will also make sure to word the policies (which have already been voted on) so they are clearer on what things constitute what level of warnings and what steps are to be taken. No drastic changes, just re-wording them so the meaning is clearer, and then I will set up a page with the new wording, and have every RB, Admin and crat sign them acknowledging that they understand the policy.

Option 3
Given the excessive lengths that a user must go to in order find him or herself considered for a permanent block, a permanent block should remain permanent no matter what, as that's its definition and purpose. As a pemanent block is also an extremely consequential matter, it should be dealt with through a typical voting proceedure consisting of all users Rollback and up.

Thus, a permanent blocking vote will contain three options: If the third voting option is chosen, then after a years' time, the matter may be voted upon by a group consisting of all Rollbacks, Admins, and Bureaucrats who were present a year prior and still maintain a position within the administration. In other words, if a user is no longer present on the wiki, or no longer holds a rank above User Level 5, he or she will not be eligible to vote on this matter. For voting to commence, the blocked user must submit an explanation of why he or she wishes to rejoin the community. It is the administrations' responsibility to gather  and present information of the events surrounding their original block, and any testimonials from users that are deemed pertinent in whether a final chance should or shouldn't be granted, to ensure that no votes are made in ignorance.
 * 1) To permanently block the user in question.
 * 2) Not to block the user in question.
 * 3) To ban the user for a 1 year period after which he or she will be considered for readmittance to the wiki, provided that he or she has not been  caught sock puppeting within that period.

The user then agrees to be on the wiki in a probationary capacity for the first 9 months (9 months probation may seem harsh, but remember, if a user is granted a final chance, the fact they did stuff to ever warrant a perm ban can't be ignored), in that time ANY rule breaks will result in the perm ban being reinstituted and no chances for reprieve. However, at the end of the 9 months, if their behaviour is satisfactory and they clearly haven't done anything wrong, they will go back to regular user status. BUT they will never in the history of the wiki ever be allowed to hold any position of power on the wiki. Not rollback or chatmod, or anything.

We will also make sure to word the policies (which have already been voted on) so they are clearer on what things constitute what level of warnings and what steps are to be taken. No drastic changes, just re-wording them so the meaning is clearer, and then I will set up a page with the new wording, and have every RB, Admin and crat sign them acknowledging that they understand the policy.

Option 3 (+1)
Flamefang (talk) 23:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Comments
Comments obviously go here, and if you need any clarification on any of the options feel free to ask. Flamefang (talk) 23:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC)