rule of thumb for these things ought to be to structure them according to broadly anarchist principles (that is, those points where most anarchists agree), and then back off from those principles as necessary given the medium (forums aren't the real world, they require special considerations).
you seem to be attempting to do that, but backing off too much from anarchist principles i think.
1). Bans may be given out in the case that the offending user is (a), posting only advertisements and spam, or (b), posting only incoherent or nonsensical posts. Ideological difference is NOT IN ANY CASE grounds for a ban.
the word "ban" immediately makes me uneasy. point (a) is fine for transparent spambots (or humans who might as well be bots), but i suspect you've also got czechwizard in mind. much as i loath his posts, they seem to occupy a gray area. i believe he's here first and foremost to peddle his ridiculous "gospel," but he's going about it in such a unique way that i can't honestly class him along with the blatant spammers. so that would be a subjective evaluation, and that should make any anarchist uneasy. point (b) seems crafted for variagil, who i would definitely consider incoherent and nonsensical, but it seems to be largely due to a language barrier. i think variagil is not quite comfortable with english. so why post here? good question, but i'm still opposed to banning people for babbling in pig-latin.
2). All bans should be brought up for discussion in a thread (or board, whatever it ends up being) dedicated to such matters before anything is done. If no objections are raised, wait to see if it's going to go away on its own, then go ahead. As a general rule, guest objections will not be counted unless a rational justification is given. This is because it's very easy for somebody to go on a proxy IP and object to their own ban.
ew, i smell the nomenklatura! this just solidifies my feeling that the power to ban is just a really bad idea. tribunals to discuss banning? seriously? why not simply ignore them until they get the message and leave? if they never do, then use your iggy bin. i just don't see how it's ever necessary to ban anyone when you have the means to "ban" them from your own view. blocking an ip for ddossing the server is one thing, but that's a matter for the benevolent dictator with their hand on the plug, not for us.
3). All regular members of the forum community will be given the power of admins. Generally, if a person seems sane and capable of avoiding the doing rash things, and have active on the forum for a couple weeks, they should be promoted. Me, Y, thelastindividual and coup etat are a few examples. IK is an example of who not to promote. If you're sure somebody is going to be fine, just go ahead and promote them. If you aren't totally sure, make a post about it first.
again, this reasoning seems backwards. why make everyone admins, when we could make nobody admins. you'll say, because we're having problems lately and need to solve them. and i'll say, iggy them and problem is solved. making everyone an admin is inviting trouble. i don't think of anarchy as everyone being a ruler; i think of it as no rulers. and why single out IK? you said above that ideological differences are not grounds for ban - why make them grounds for denying equal adminship? i think IK is a racist pig, but i can iggy him if it bothers me enough. and as the circle of people responding to him gets smaller, he'll go look for a bigger audience. this "promotion" business smacks of elitism. i don't like it.
4). Any extreme actions (such as bans) uncalled for by the parameters of these guidelines will lead to the offending user having their actions undone and the removal of the admin powers, not necessarily permanently.
more tribunal/nomenklatura elitism. people gathering to decide the fate of others - even if done at a round table - stinks and should be considered a vile option to be avoided if at all possible. i don't see the present situation as dire enough for this, honestly. it's just a few annoying asshats (and perhaps you include me among them, but the point stands; altho in my case you'd have to ip-ban me, which i assume can only be done by the benevolent dictator anyway).
5). Ideas for any changes or additions to this forum, these guidelines included, can and should be presented at any time. This is a dynamic community.
but not dynamic enough to be tolerant of it's most quirky outliers?
6). Censorship is strictly prohibited.
but isn't that what this is all about, really? silencing those deemed annoying? and isn't that exactly backwards from how a libertarian society would work? if you annoy me, i've got 2 options: cover your mouth (ban you) or plug my ears (iggy you). authoritarian vs libertarian.
bottom line: seems to me the elegant response to annoyances like czechwizard, etc, would be to start a thread arguing for an organized boycott. present your case as to why so and so is an asshat, and try to convince others to join you in iggying him. if enough agree, that's effectively a ban. if not, then you'll have to accept the tradeoff of not being able to follow conversations involving that person. if they're just here to game google, well, in some ways we're all gaming google, since the things we say here are high on anarchist search results.
anyway those are the thoughts of a lowly guest, fwiw