This question already has an answer here:
Some people simply aren't very good at reviewing. They're actively harming the site by approving bad suggested edits, clicking "Looks OK" on spam, etc. On a site like Stack Overflow, we're not running short on reviewers.
The current review-ban system is only slightly more intelligent than a box of rocks. Your first automated ban is 2 days, then 7 days for your second within a time interval, then 30 days.
Now, what happens if you sit out the 30 day one, then immediately jump back in and review stuff badly again, failing a few audits? The system gives you a 2-day ban. And starts the progression over again.
Moderators can 'override' this... kind of. They can manually ban people from reviewing... for up to 30 days. There are far too many people who are willing to sit out the 30-day ban, then keep reviewing things wrong. The only other alternatives to keep these repeat-offenders out of the queue is to outright suspend them, something I'd really rather not do if they're being responsible with other features.
My request is twofold:
- The system shouldn't reset to a 2-day ban on people with vast history. If they've already gone through a 2-7-30 cycle, their next automated ban should be 30 days.
- Moderators should be able to review ban people for at least 90 days. At present, a moderator would need to suspend a user completely rather than just giving them a longer break from review when repeated shorter breaks don't correct patterns of problematic review decisions.