UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Ban Review

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

If this policy passes, a new sub-page to the vandal banning area will be created called Ban Review. On that page any user can post a request for the review of a warning or ban from the UD Wiki. It will be reviewed by anyone who is currently listed as an arbitrator. The arbitrator's decision is final. The only problem here is when all abritrators are rejected by either side. If this happens the case goes to a vote wherein all users may vote FOR or AGAINST the ban or warning staying in place. Such votes would last a maximum of one week.

In any instance, two Moderators would be allowed to over-rule the ban or warning, but not uphold it against the process.

Bans and Warnings can only be reviewed once, and the decision is final for all time.

There will be no penalty to a moderator whose ban or warning is removed, and no additional penalty to a banned user whose case fails.

Banned users will be allowed to speak during this process, but if they edit any other page than the Ban Review page while their ban would have still been in place, they immediately lose their case.

Each side of the case would get to post their view on the subject, followed by one rebuttal each. This means that the process would be similar to the following.

Banned user: I think my ban was wrong because I was banned for editing my own userpage.

Banning mod: No way. You went too far!

Banned user: Rebuttal.

Banning mod: Final rebuttal.


No other parties may comment during proceedings, unless it is on the discussion page of the Ban Review area.

VOTING CLOSED

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

  1. My vote here should be no surprise to anyone. Also, perhaps you could go straight to voting and skip the appeal. Ban appeals that are voted down are final.--J Muller 01:39, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  2. If your justification is so tenuous it won't stand in the face of resonable debate, banning seems a skosh (sp?) premature)...Brains 03:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Agent White WTFW!SGPCMS-MetaCMS 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Against

  1. So, uh, so much for actual discussion. You could have at least tried to pursue Xoid's line of thinking. For someone apparently so concerned about what other people think you're trying awfully hard to ram this policy down our throats. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 20:44, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  2. This is cute. In a sad way.--Gage 20:45, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  3. More stupid drama. No way.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 20:48, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  4. Alan has a good point. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 22:08, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  5. And I thought I was being a tit. --Funt Solo 22:38, 23 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Sadly the only thing that comes to mind when I see this suggestion is idiots that just never give up... -Certified=InsaneQuébécois 00:34, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Uh, smells like spam. Bubba 01:29, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  8. The existing review process seems more than sufficient to me. Paul Brunner 02:59, 24 October 2006 (BST)
    There is none, as far as I know.--J Muller 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Uh, walks like spam Conndrakamod T CFT 05:26, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  10. Wikipedia has a stricter system than this, and that's saying something. –Xoid STFU! 07:55, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  11. I'd rather not have 3pwv/theDevil/whatever have another route to being annoying beyond his ruthless sockpuppetry. That and there is no fucking need. --Karlsbad 08:31, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  12. I don't believe I need to say anything else than the above. Pillsy FT 14:44, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  13. No. Just, no. Cyberbob  Talk  14:59, 24 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Asheets 22:07, 25 October 2006 (BST)
  15. Meh, I think not. --Peter Moran 07:36, 26 October 2006 (BST)
  16. This policy is also full of crap...next... --Axe Hack 14:02, 26 October 2006 (BST)
  17. As above, and don't the mods have enough to do without having to justify each vandal ban twice? Atticus Rex AMP ' T 15:28, 26 October 2006 (BST)
  18. You are NOT the father!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 05:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. DJSMITHCDF 00:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Who do you think will be the first person to ask for amazing back? Lets not give anyone a chance, if they mess up its their own fault.--Brendoshi 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. I've been a member all of two days now, and even I can sense that this is not a good idea. TotallyAnnoying 11:50, 3 November 2006
Personal tools
advertisements