UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Permaban Appeal

As has been seen by UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Unban Amazing, there has been a certain interest in appealing some permabans to older users who have a desire to come back to the wiki, or are generally believed by the community to have been banned or escalated unfairly.

While we are obliged to follow through with unbans if the community desire it, I think there's some room for some small rules and regulations to be put in place to make sure these appeals just don't succeed at the whim of meatpuppets or troublemakers. It'd also be nice to keep things off the Policy Discussion pages.

This is a draft for a possible system in which permabanned users (many of which have received attention in the past for wanting to come back, like Cornholioo, Izumi, Amazing) may have their permaban escalation reviewed by the community and possibly have it revoked, in order to join the wiki community once again.

The following content inside the box below will be added to the A/DE page, and will outline the legitimate ban appeal process for the future:

==Permaban Appeals== Users who have been permabanned on UDWiki may have their bans appealed on the De-Escalations page. To do this, a user must submit a case under the permabanned user's name, preferably with usage of the {{vndl}} template and an explanation regarding why the user should be unbanned. The case will also be noted on the main page via {{Wiki News}}. Voting will commence for 2 weeks, and a majority of 2/3rds is needed. After the voting period is up, a sysop will review the vote and take appropriate action. If 2/3rds majority has been reached for rescinding the ban, the user will have their A/VD adjusted, and their permaban escalation will be struck, with an added link to the permaban vote. If the user was banned as per the "3 edit rule", they will have the permaban escalation struck but will be left with 2 warnings. A permabanned user must be permabanned for at least 6 months before they can have the ban appealed. If an appeal does not fit this rule, it may be immediately cycled by a sysop without warning. Appeals are considered a serious vote. Misuse of this privilege, eg. multiple submissions over a short time, may result in abusers being brought to vandal banning.

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. There was not a lot of input given with this policy, but those who gave it, it was greatly appreciated. Hopefully it passes -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Meh, not the biggest fan of the wording or certain small bits of it but it's something that's long been needed, if this is the best starting point there is it's certainly better than it could have been. --Karek^maps?! 01:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Can be fixed later--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Makes sense. -MHSstaff 04:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
5. how can they be brought to vandal banning if they are already perma? the wording really stinks.--
   
   bitch 07:24 25 March 2011 (UTC) 07:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   It says there? A user must submit it on a permabanned user's behalf. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   ah. sorry it was late. now I see that.--

   

   bitch 14:54 25 March 2011 (UTC)

6. Good policy.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Ditto. -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Meh. It's really well written, preventing abuse, but I can't really think of any person to which this could be applied. The current (de)escalation system is very lenient as it is, only the most persistent of idiots get all the way from 1 warning to a permaban, and by that point I think no period of banning other than a permanent one will fix that. Eh, I guess it doesn't hurt to have it in the extremely rare case of an appeal though. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

   i hate to admit it but i agree.--

   

   bitch 14:54 25 March 2011 (UTC)

9. Why not. Although I do envisage another Amazing attempt appearing about 5 minutes after this passes. =/ -- Cheese 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
10. We want cornhole back--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 16:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)