Forum:Ban Review Panel

Ok folks... so, this is something I've been mulling over for a bit. I talked it over (metaphorically, since it was all done via email) with the admins, and they were all kosher with it after we tweaked some things and clarified some matters. Basically, this is a proposal to establish a set of standards for reviewing long-term and permanent bans. Here's the guidelines that were agreed upon. I'm submitting them here for review, and I'll start up a vote, to see how everyone feels about it. (Note - the admins already agreed to this unanimously, so it's already a done deal as far as I'm concerned. If the community is overwhelmingly against for some reason, we'll reassess and reevaluate and all that. I won't just ramrod it through or anything.)

Ban Review Panel guidelines

 * Anyone may request a review. However, only a Bureaucrat, Administrator, or Senior Editor may initiate a review. When doing so, the individual submitting the case must state the name of the individual, the reason for submitting the case (making a case for the review), and the desired outcome (i.e. do they want 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.
 * 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.
 * 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. 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.