UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Ban Review

I give full permission to modify this policy in areas I may have missed, provided enough discussion and agreement takes place here. -- Basil 20:09, 19 October 2006 (BST)

Not Needed. 95% of all Bans are for fairly obvious and necessary reasons. Those 5% (or less, I'm being generous) that would be reviewable, can already contact the Mod responsible or one of the Mods other to ask for a review of the situation (i.e. this is explained in the message you get when you try to access the Wiki via a Banned account or proxy.) The last thing we need to do is add yet another series of hoops to jump through to get genuine problems banned. _{my .02} Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 20:29, 19 October 2006 (BST)

You should only allow a review after the ban has expired (or any time for the warning). Obviously, every ban and warning would be contested, and mods will have to uselessly prove the obvious truth. -Certified=Insane^☭ 21:46, 19 October 2006 (BST)

Wrongful bans/warnings are why we have Misconduct and allow contesting on the Vandal Banning page. This is pretty unnecessary and I have to say that making arbitrators into psuedo-mods is a little disturbing. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 00:28, 20 October 2006 (BST)

Basil? No. This won't work. I propose a parole board instead if people think it's necessary. The idea of allowing people to officially question their ban twice in a row is a pointless waste of time. Giving a little bit of time for both parties to perhaps see some middle ground? That's workable. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 00:46, 20 October 2006 (BST)

This would be a horrible addition to an already horribly bloated system. Contrary to popular belief the sysops here are humans and not, as some people seem to believe, atomic powered moderating robots. They are already forced to go through a fairly long and extremely transparent system that is open to review when they ban somebody. The use of arbitrators as sysop lites is a mistake, and widely outsteps the bounds of their authority. They exist to arbitrate user disagreements over edits, nothing else. --Zaruthustra^Mod 04:39, 20 October 2006 (BST)

It's nuts how hard you guys are holding onto your system where only other moderators can have any way of trying to remove their own. it is a bit like there is a fix in the system to prevent users from having a say. misconduct is almost always dismissed right away because mods watch out for their own and can't make the rest of their team mad at them. That's all i was trying to change here. Give the wiki back to the regular users! -- Basil 20:20, 23 October 2006 (BST)

Go pass your policy on the SW wiki. If you think all misconduct cases are dismissed then you clearly haven't read any of them. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 20:41, 23 October 2006 (BST)

I'm almost at a loss for words. Wikipedia is more facist than our system and they're about as transparent as it comes. Ever thought of how the problem might be the users and not the admins? Oh, of course not. Sorry, I was forgetting that vandals piss gold plated hamtars and shoot magical rays of sunshine out of their arse. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 08:09, 24 October 2006 (BST)