| abstract
| - On this page, if a user is banned/blocked for whatever reason, their case to allow them to edit here again can be made. Only one case may be active at a time. Anyone may request a review, but only the people listed below can initiate a review. If you are not a member of the following three groups, then please direct your request to the “Review requests” section below. Someone might contact you for additional details about the case. No one apart from these people can initiate a review, and if anyone apart from these people initiates a review, then the request will be moved to the "Review Requests" section. Any evidence that is presented will also be moved there and someone who can initiate a review may contact you for additional details. The people in the following groups are the only people who can initiate a review:
* Bureaucrats: SpartHawg948, Bioevil087
* Administrators: Lancer1289, Commdor, Trandra, JakePT, Teugene, DRY, and Tullis
* Senior Editors: User:Temporaryeditor78, User:Legionwrex, H-Man Havoc, User:SolitaryReaper, Dammej, Xaero Dumort, Arbington, and Bronzey Each case will have a set of rules which are as follows:
* When initiating a review, the individual submitting the case must state the name of the individual, with a link to their user page, the reason for submitting the case (making a case for the review), and the desired outcome (for example, the ban lifted or merely shortened).
* Once a case has been submitted for review, a review panel will be assembled consisting of three persons, all of whom must be Bureaucrats, Administrators, or Senior Editors. At least one member of the panel must be an Administrator or Bureaucrat.
* Once a panel has been selected and the case convened, a seven-day public comment period will commence. Editors who so choose may speak in favor of, or in opposition to, the proposal. Judges may ask questions of these editors, to seek clarification or explanation, but otherwise may not take part. They are, however, expected to familiarize themselves with the comments.
* At the close of the seven-day period, the judges will deliberate in private via email. Any decision to lift or reduce a ban must be unanimous.
* Regardless of the result, once a verdict has been reached, the senior judge, determined by position (Bureaucrat superseding Administrator, Admin superseding Senior Editor), then (if necessary) by seniority, will assign one member of the panel to present the verdict of the panel as well as the reason for the decision, in the form of an “opinion”, to the public.
* Should the verdict to keep the ban in place, a minimum of three months must elapse before the case can be submitted for review again. If possible, when a case is submitted for review a second time, as much of the panel as possible should have been uninvolved in the previous case. For Judges in these cases, there is a rule as well:
* Selections will be made by a Bureaucrat or Administrator on the basis of a rotating schedule, subject to availability. Any potential judge who wishes to speak for or against the individual under review, or who feels otherwise biased toward or against the individual, is expected to recuse themselves. Cases will be archived after they are concluded, after remaining on this page for one week for people to review the results, or until another case is started, whichever comes first. Case archives are not to be edited and any edits made to them, apart from maintenance, will be reverted on sight. Cases are to be set up as indicated in the Example of case structure. Judges will not release their email correspondences for multiple reasons, including possible public backlash. The final vote count, should a unanimous decision not be reached, will also not be released. These cannot be requested and are will remain private.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)