UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Petition to Unban JR streets

What do you all think?

Well?

Lol? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. COnstructive. Hmmm. Do we need a subrule saying unless humourous and creatively done.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no. Because then every Vandal will simply put a humorous spin on things and accuse the Wiki population of not having a sense of humor because it was something unnacceptable. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 21:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Um no because cunt-face above doesn't have a sense of humour and hates it when people disagree with him. Don't forget he's absolutely bat-fuck insane irl and even goes so far as to invent imaginary enemies on here and believes in Bogus Christ--CunntLikka 10:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

so i guess that the moral of this story is that if you vandalize the wiki, make it humorous and for some reason the rules do not apply to you --Scotw 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the above too statements. the answer to my previous question being. no.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore

This would set a VERY bad precedent. Personally I find a lot of 3PWV stuff entertaining..but Vandalism is vandalism, and should be treated accordingly. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Not gonna happen unless it comes from Kevan himself. Nor should it.--Karek^maps?! 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there was a policy to unban Amazing. That policy failed miserably and the user who made that policy got banned himself. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between Amazing and the funny bloke whose name I keep forgetting. --Thekooks 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea of an unbanning process, because I believe in giving people a second chance. That said, I think there should be some type of provisional status that applies to somebody who has been unbanned...essentially a warning that if they break the rules again, they're out and this time it'll be a permban. --Tarumigan 11:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't Uncyclopedia

To quote the Main page

This site is intended to be a more detailed manual for Urban Dead than the FAQ and includes in-depth information such as active revivification points, strategy guides to playing the game, the results of investigations into search probabilities, details on other elements of the game mechanics including items and skills, and information on various groups of players, including Recruitment for player run groups.

This users actions not only failed to add anything constructive to the wiki, s/he actively went against the site's stated intended by removing useful and relevant information. Humor does have its place on the wiki but it should not replace useful information such as the danger report map. If this user wanted to be unbanned so that s/he could make constructive edits then replacing the permaban with a warning should be considered but this petition seeks to reward actions that were detrimental to the wiki's objective

Also is this petition the type of screwing with the Administration namespace that shot Nalikill up the escalation ladder so quickly? - Vantar 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the sysop part was a joke, Vantar. This entire thing is a joke, perhaps it was taken too far. Still, I think a warning would have sufficed, in most cases I think that's all that is needed. 3 edits 1+ vandalism doesn't always need to be enforced. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To everybody

You are all missing the point here! The fact is that his last edit cannot be counted as vandalism because all he did was replace "nope" with "nuh-uh" People replace words all the time in edits, it hardly counts as vandalism. He should just get a week ban and then be unbanned, this is not izumi or amazing. The man 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To receive a permaban, the user has to make at least 3 edits to the wiki, at least one of which is deemed vandalism (the first edit) and none of which are deemed constructive (the other two). Therefore the Permaban is justified and for all you know, this might have been Amazing or 3pwv or similar. Unbanning them would be a very stupid idea. -- Cheese 10:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fun is over

Ok, time to settle this once and for all. It was a funny petition to unban a vandal who made a funny vandal edit. By points:

• Even if it achieved enough for votes to pass, this petition wouldn't be followed by the administration staff., simply because there is no way for a permabanned user to be unbanned by the wiki. If such a thing would have to occur, the sysop who granted the ban should have been brought to A/M where the legality of the ban would be discussed, and then, if found guilty of misconduct, the ban would have been lifted and the proper punishment (if any) would be enforced.
• There is a claim that the only vandalism the user made was the first one, where he switched the name of the suburbs for funny ones, while the other two were only the user replacing words, thus they shouldn't count and the 3strikesandyerout shouldn't have been applied to him. Such policy was created to counter a known vandal from this wiki (3pwv), but this doesnt forbid the administration team from (perma)banning an account merely created for vandalism, which was the single intent of such account. We dont need to wait for a recently created user to commit 3 vandalisms to exclude it from the community Whoever disagrees with this is clearly a moron.
• People claim that with this Amazing could return to the wiki. Whois Amazing ? What have him done for the wiki ? Why is he listed together with a vandal such as 3pwn ? I see several users yell Amazing this, Amazing that, but i dont remember seeing most of them when amazing was actually active in the wiki. Has Amazing really turned into this wiki version of Godwin's law ?
• People claim this could be used as precedent to unban other previously banned vandals from this wiki. Such precedent should be welcome, as it could create a chance for morons such as izumi to be given a chance to come back and show they are not that morons in reality, or to allow the comeback of other users who were simply banned because they were the weakest link in the previous pro-harrasment mentality we had in the wiki... and by that i mean *gasp* Amazing.

Said that, i declare this petition null and void... if nothing but humour. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone could tell that this was humour by the sysop promotion comment at the top of the page... but hey. I guess not. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

To the third and fourth ones, Amazing is a boogieman of sorts, not godwin's law, he's a useful boogieman when used right and if he were ever to return someone would have to start referring to jjamesgate/jjamesfaxi who is like Amazing on crack cocaine when it comes to users who have potential usage as a boogieman. I, personally, prefer Amazing, at least he had some slight value somewhere at one point that most people have forgotten about, as such it doesn't make me feel like a bottom feeding bucket of scum every time I use his name. If a ban review type policy were to be made it would need a few specific things, the biggest being it would need to function simlarly to A/M but without constant third party input, it would need to be set up in a way that a user can comment on the talk page to add to the conversation but that only the SysOps comment on the main page and in a consice manner, and it would need limits on who can be put up for unbanning, how frequently, and when.--Karek^maps?! 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay

So, everybody seems to be pretty opinionated about this, especially the admins. I'd like to personally say thank you to those who vouched for me, and thanks as well for those who voted against, as they swung the issue from "It's funny" to a debate about the rules. Now, about my reinstatement. No one seems to want to check their email (which is the reason why I am here), and if they had they would have seen my request to rejoin the community. I admit I had created the account just for that edit, but once I saw just how much everyone appreciated it I decided to stick around. So, now you have my testimony to use in this debate. Though awesome, don't worry, you won't have to expect any more wayward edits from me if I am unbanned, and I can assure you my presence here will make this place 54% cooler just from my presence. JR streets2 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, we should ban you straight away for circumventing a ban. But I shall see what the other sysops say first. -- Cheese 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem. Everybody else? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, um, I just wanted to state my opinion because I started this whole thing and the only thing missing was my opinion. I haven't made any edits to the actual namespace, and don't plan to until a decision has been reached. JR streets2 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems at the moment. You might want to change your password now by the way. However, I think we should put this to a Sysop vote before we decide on anything. -- Cheese 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends which account he wants. This, the banned, a new one. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer the banned, as a 2 by my name is so ugly and it would mean more to the wiki if I ended up using my own. JR streets2 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Sysops, what do we reckon? Non-sysop votes will be struck. -- Cheese 00:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wellllll I actually did check my e-mail but I didn't feel as if it warranted bringing it to the wiki... But now that you have gone and mentioned it...

"Um no. Because then every Vandal will simply put a humorous spin on things and accuse the Wiki population of not having a sense of humor because it was something unacceptable."

The latter is true, but you might want to rethink the former.

"If this user wanted to be unbanned so that s/he could make constructive edits then replacing the permaban with a warning should be considered but this petition seeks to reward actions that were detrimental to the wiki's objective"

Sounds like a good idea, no?

If ya do decide to fulfill my request and unban me (oh, yeah, this is a request), please do so after this vote. I want to see how big an effect I've had on people here. Besides, why would you want to spoil the fun?

-The Freshmaker''
Said email was received by me... And i would say this also proves that User:JRStreets, User:JRStreets2, and User:Jordan Salafack are in fact the same person. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 01:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy!! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys? Checked my mail today (for the first time in forever) and inbetween an offer for free laptops, and vouchers from La redoute, I found this:

"Maybe if they got into contact, begging to be let back on the wiki I could at least see the point in this petition, but as it is, the only person who doesn't seem to care overly about this banning is the vandal." Hmm. Well, I was going to wait until the vote was over but the people voting against seem to be smarter and more numerous, so I might as well do it now. Although I suppose I'm not begging, per se, but yes, I would like the privilege of being let back on. Oh, um, and check your email. -JR streets, aka The Freshmaker

Sent on the 18th, apparently. There ya go, if it makes a difference to anything.--Seventythree^Talk 17:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is neither the proper method or place to handle this. Take this to A/DS if you want to have this discussion but I would suggest reading vandal banning first. - Vantar 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What Vantar said with the addition of I can confirm that I have received no emails and am now somewhat tempted to start some misconduct drama.--Karek^maps?! 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Misonbitration \õ/ --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Null and void

I'm declaring this policy null and void. Aside from the question of whether or not this belongs in this section of the wiki, a policy must be in discussion for 3 days prior to any vote taking place. This did not happen in this case, so the vote, and therefore the policy are null and void. I have withdrawn it as per the guidelines. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)