UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Policy and Banning

The key idea here being 'SPECIFC' users, and not polices designed for 'unbanning people banned for <x> event/actions/ect'. Good choice of words, deals directly at the root problem without overstepping its bounds. But doesn't touch too much on vandal history...not that I'd think it'd be TOO big of an issue. --MorthBabid 22:08, 26 October 2006 (BST)

I actually agree with this, it's just kind of silly that a policy is needed to define what is essentially common sense. I think most reasonable people would agree that policies should be about process and should not be about individuals. But not everyone is reasonable. Bubba 23:45, 26 October 2006 (BST)

Thank you for the comments, but I would like to know if you think the policy needs any specific changes. Mostly I'm concerned about linking ban reversals with misconduct. It would be nice to have another way to reverse bans but I can't think of a way that isn't immediately abusable. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 00:08, 28 October 2006 (BST)

We have a current system for undoing bans, but it just isn't used that frequently, to my understanding. Moderation/Arbitration is the proper place, no? --MorthBabid 05:59, 28 October 2006 (BST)

I see the UDWiki:Moderation/Arbitration page and I see how the process could be used for ban appeal, but I don't see any specific instances of it being used or guidelines for the process works for ban appeal. I probably just don't know where to look. Can you point us to it? Or is it just implicit? Bubba 06:47, 28 October 2006 (BST)

I know that M/A is allowed to supersede conventional wiki guidelines in many ways, but I have yet to see it used to contest bans, or even if that's allowed. I'd like to hear from a mod on that subject, but for now I'd assume that it's not a possibility. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 07:44, 28 October 2006 (BST)

It seems like what they are saying in other areas is that ban review is done privately in email. Like you, I don't see any examples that M/A is used to reverse bans. I think there should be a formal policy for that process, if for no other reason than to stop policies being proposed that deal with one single user. Bubba 18:53, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Not only that, but making it a public issue could help prevent ban abuse. However, to prevent THAT into becoming a 3-ring Circus, we'd have to setup some sort of system that dictated far better how the M/A debates worked. They currently work like a monkeyhouse talk page, with little structure. I believe current policies are underway to fix this? --MorthBabid 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Modified the line that says that misconduct proceedings were required to reverse a ban. Obviously bannees should be allowed to appeal via email, and I don't want mods to get hammered with misconduct cases just to reverse bans (not that that doesn't already happen). Do you think anything else is required before we put this thing up for voting? -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 12:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)