Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-25648422-20161225154408/@comment-26593304-20161225193346

My proposition is that we set up some kind of ruleset, similar to a court system. If you have evidence, talk to a higher staff member, show them, etc. That member can maybe discuss it with others - a jury, if you will - and come to a consensus on how to proceed. Have one person, preferably an Admin or B-Crat, act as a "judge." If found guilty, the suspected user should be notified, and then give them a chance to tell the truth. Make the punishment (ban or whatever it is) slightly better if they're honest as an incentive. If not guilty, then drop it - no one else needs to know. Keep in mind that this whole thing happens under the radar - it should not be public until (1) Suspect is convicted, (2) the jury requires the aid of the whole community, or (3) the user who complained feels that they were not justified, the format for which is below.

If and ONLY if nothing comes of the proceedings, then the user who complained can make an accusation blog if they feel the need. There should be a standard format to these however. Make it neat and organized, with sections that provide the evidence and explanations, why they feel it should be brought up, who was involved originally, etc. If necessary, we stage a vote like any other staff-based stuff. After this stage, what's done is done - there's no changing the verdict.

All in favor?