UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Unban Amazing: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→No) |
(→No) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
#Nope. I don't really have anything against the guy and wouldn't mind if he was unbanned. I disagree with the method, though. I'll continuously vote no on these types of policies. Come up with a better way. {{User:Vapor/sig}} 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | #Nope. I don't really have anything against the guy and wouldn't mind if he was unbanned. I disagree with the method, though. I'll continuously vote no on these types of policies. Come up with a better way. {{User:Vapor/sig}} 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
# -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | # -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
#'''No''' | #'''No''' alt abuse --[[User:C Whitty|C Whitty]] 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:59, 20 February 2011
Basically, Amazing was a controversial user. He was disliked by many, admired by few, and a good guy to play with (even when he threatened half the wiki into misconbitration). If we take the abirtration cases out of the equation, thouhj, he was a good contributor of the wiki and helped in many areas of the wiki. Most of the users which antagonized with him are now gone, and he desires to come back to the wiki merely to be able to edit his own user page.
Unbanning Amazing will allow a former wiki dinosaur to return to the wiki, and at least leave his own user page a lil bit better.
Vote Here
Yes
- I was one of the users who was part of the entire issue against amazing and want to see him back, i dont see why others wouldnt People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Start of good things, next step Cornhole--
TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC) - Yarp.
20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC) - He was goaded into being banned by individuals using worse tactics. It was unwarranted. --Zod Rhombus 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes... but this should not really be a Policy. In fact we should probably have a Policy to deal with such requests (rare though they are) --Honestmistake 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No
- Exactly the same reasons as Michaelson, but with a negative vote. You've yet to explain to people why Amazing's banning was unfair. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- No - Policy is clearly a joke made for the amusement of the policy maker. --VVV RPMBG 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- No. -- Cheese 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. I don't really have anything against the guy and wouldn't mind if he was unbanned. I disagree with the method, though. I'll continuously vote no on these types of policies. Come up with a better way. ~
22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC) - -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- No alt abuse --C Whitty 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
