UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Unban Amazing

Told you

That is all. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Told who ? When ? Where ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to come back, then maybe. 18:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

how is he supposed to show that he wants to come back if he is denied access into udwiki ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC. 18:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

'

via Facebook --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If he wants to seriously re-appeal, he can I think. At least SA tried to overturn a permaban for Izumi once, although it was turned down. However, since deciding on (un)banning is a sysop-only power this cannot be a policy as it is not up to the community. Suggest the A/VB page instead. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. If the community votes to unban someone, using a policy like this, the sysops are bound to do it. Jedaz was unbanned in similar circumstances -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:45 18 February 2011 (BST)

That's scary. Is there a limit to where you can go with this, or are you telling me that in theory you can start stuff like this and this? Seems strange considering policy is a popular vote. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is that scary? The first wouldn't get up and the second is basically what the promotions page is. Sysops are an instrument of the community. They are given the trust to ban users, but if the community makes it clear that they strongly disagree with a decision (enough to get a policy up), then the sysops need to reconsider a decision -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:08 18 February 2011 (BST)

Yup. in the case of meatpuppets; break glass and sound the alarm to kevan. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the first example get up considering what you just said? And the second is indeed like promotions with the very important difference that it is a majority vote without crats deciding. Considering we don't strike meatpuppetery this could be open to be abuse. I dunno man, but this seems fishy. Seems like people could bypass A/RE, A/VB, A/PM with a policy vote. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly? After seeing the shithouse modding the minecraft wiki mods do, I'm open to letting the people decide whenever. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The community wouldn't vote to ban Ross... not witout some extremely clear sock/meat puppetry. Basically any attempt to force a sysop to be elected would be stymied by the fact that there is a clear policy dictating that it goes through the normal A/PM proceedure, and if you're upset with the outcome, then your appeal is done by electing new 'crats at the next election -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:41 18 February 2011 (BST)

That already makes a lot of more sense. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unbans have previously been done via A/VB about HiteiKan and about Kerkel. Not sure in how far that holds water in regards of policy and guidelines (IMHO it stretches it enough to tie a knot into it), but it has been done anyway. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Both of those examples are "3 edit rule" type permas... where someone comes on, does jackass edits without thinking, and get's banhammered. They are different cases to Amazing or Izumi or thier ilk. Sysops should be willing to give "newbs" a second chance, but someone who has been around long enough to know the rules, and gets excalated through more than just the single A/VB case has shown a clear disreguard for the wiki, and is unlikely to get cosideration from either the sysop team, or the community. Only time will see the community willing to allow them back. And probably only because they havn't experienced their arseclownery, first hand ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:26 18 February 2011 (BST)

Just let me know when I'm banned. Shouldn't be too much of an issue, I can just circumvent the ban with an alternative user name. You massive bicycle thieves. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the wiki's guidelines: "Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it." --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Going off of that, it seems like an Open Discussion is the proper course to take then, not A/PD. Making a policy over something like this is just silly, since there are ways set out for the community to discuss issues. Heck, even getting a consensus on A/VB would be better than making a policy over this issue. —Aichon— 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The odd thing was less that there is some clause allowing unbans (the sentence Yon quoted was also quoted in the HiteiKan case, after all). What struck me rather as odd was the use of A/VB for it, which is more about sys-op decision and very little about community input. A/PD or Open Discussion would probably more in line with the guidelines, but the precedent would still be there if anyone wants to pursue this over an established channel. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be one or the other. If the community wants someone back, they use their channel. If the ops want to discuss reverting their rulings from a past case given new information, they use theirs. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We've had this discussion numerous times. The answer is always going to be be no. -- Cheese 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hagnat is again simply poking the sysop team. First A/VB, then deletions, and now this. I'm assuming Misconduct will be next. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't give him ideas. =p -- Cheese 21:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

misconduct will be next if my user page remains non-deleted in the next hours... its * my * user page, and no one should be able to keep it against my will --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

THIS IS FUNNY -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Get Out. --DT^PK 23:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

While your at it make sure to unban Cornhole as well for more lols--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

now now... one vandal at a time, please --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well lets get this wrapped up then! When can we start voting?--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

i am going to write a text this weekend, then we can start voting --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 17:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

fuck yeah! lets vote on this.. ----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 03:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the deal? (Sorry, too lazy to look it up)

Either I haven't been around long enough, or wasn't paying attention at the right time. What is the deal with this user, what did the user do to be banned, why the readmission attempt, etc.? What's the backstory, here? Asheets 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Like hagnat, he was just here to cause drama, people harrassed him for being a little bitch faggot. he made a billion arbitration cases, was promoted without going through A/PM (the crat who did it was demoted) then amazing himself got demoted the next day for fucking stuff up in self interest. then he was permabanned somehow and came back as a user called "god" who eventually got permabanned too. That's what I gathered? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

God got permabanned for being an alt of Amazing, a permabanned user. See UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Data if you're so inclined. I believe Yon's conversed with him a few times on the hell rising wiki. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He started out as a fairly good contributor, but by the time I got here, he was pretty much just involved in drama. He wasn't really like Hagnat, more an intelligent version of Izumi. If he didn't get his own way, he'd chuck tanties, and everyone got sick of it, and he ended up being the target of a pretty ugly Witch Hunt, and eventually got tag teamed into a permaban. Those who hunted him then created a policy specifically to unban him so they could continue the fun. It failed. Then he came back as God, The Devil, Tito, Merlin, Terrans, and no doubt many others. He's one of those people whose attempts at resolving conflicts only make the situation worse, but they never stop and it just ends up feeding back on itself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:10 19 February 2011 (BST)

actually, the devil was the 3 pages wiki vandal, and so were most of the alts associated with him. Or so told my sources --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I was never around for Amazing so I can't form an intelligent opinion on the merits of his permaban, and by extension, unbanning him. However I will say that I'm opposed to writing policies for the benefit or detriment of one user regardless of any precedent. My feeling is that we should only introduce policies to address issues that are relevant to the entire wiki community, and for that reason I would vote against.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If he is serious allow him to make his case

If his intentions are true let us allow him a deadline to submit a readmission attempt and if he does not do so let us close this matter --C Whitty 19:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yay, Wikigate!

Unban him immediately! --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes, Wikigate!

Keep him banned immediately. History has proven that change doesn't work. -- Cheese 19:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, it's a terrible idea. -- Cheese 19:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What an amazing turn of events

We all know Amazing was targeted and forced into being banned but a group of users that truly only existed to cause drama anyway - with no other real contributions to the health of the wiki. The Anti-Amazings were really only new versions who banded together to use "strength in numbers". Its easy to vilify someone when you are spreading non-stop crap about them until it changes public opinion. Amazing was just giving as good as he got, there were only more of his enemies active at any given time. Look in the logs - the grief and tone he was given was no better than his "actions". Yet, he is banned and the others went scot-free. At least Amazing had actual beef and dealt with his issues and the perpetrators without trying to disrupt the wiki for the sake of disruption. UNLIKE REAL WIKI VANDALS. It was the others who escalated it out of control and it became a "let's fuck with whatever Amazing is doing" event.

Amazing was set up. Period. --Zod Rhombus 20:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

btw, this is a serious policy. Aside from all the other lulz stuff, this one is definitly serious and should be approved. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)