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)

Agree. --Zod Rhombus 20:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I started getting involved on the wiki just at the tail end of the Amazing Drama and I have to say I do think he was victimized to a very large degree. Sure he fought back and earned a good few of his warnings but frankly he really was pushed into a corner in a Witch Hunt and his response wasn't all that surprising! --Honestmistake 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I only vaguely remember this but everything above sorta sounds right. That said, the ban evasions give pause. -MHSstaff 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt about it, there were a bunch of cunts hanging on his every word and action by the end, but that doesn't just happen to anyone, y'know. Everyone has to put up with jerks, most people don't encourage it, and definately don't actively feed it. Amazing wanted to play the hard man, and he failed, hard. The more he tried to force his will on one of his tormenters, the more he pissed off other, univolved people. I see it all to often -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:07 21 February 2011 (BST)

Substantive Cause

Why should he be unbanned? What substantive reasons are there? (List them below in a list summarising them, so that I don't have to work it out myself. :P ) --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't be lazy. Everything is subjective to a point. Read the logs, look at the events and then make an informed decision. I personally think the drama was brought to him and he responded in kind. I feel he was bullied into making questionable decisions and had no disruptive initiative. But that's just my opinion. Check out the pages for yourself and decide. --Zod Rhombus 20:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've seen the pages, and I think he was escalated using the mechanisms which were valid at the time, and permabanned for using alts to breach his one year ban. Just looking at the pages will always be the same thing for me - under those circumstances, his ban was valid. So give me some reason to vote to unban him, or I'm going to vote against.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You see? People want something doing, but won't bother to explain why. This is why it MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a nice enough guy, but the last I heard he hates this place and doesn't want to come back, so I see this as a moot point.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You could always ask him directly yon. You've got an alright relationship with him. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Started a conversation with him several days ago about thsi policy. Haven't had a response yet.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Practical implementation

Assuming the policy gets through, at which escalation level would Amazing be reinstated? Would he get a clean sheet (as the community overrules previous op decisions)? Would he start with two warnings (as established by the HiteiKan and Kerkel cases)? Or would those minutiae be completely up to the ops (possibly discussing the matter on A/VB)? (Personally, I'd be in favour of leaving two escalations on the rap-sheet in the light of Amazing's past crass misconduct cases and to encourage keeping a low profile until after a couple of deescalations, but that's just my personal two centimes.) -- Spiderzed▋ 20:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the policy doesn't state that, so we'd have to come to our own conclusion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong place really

So why are we making a site-wide policy that only affects one specific user? It would be one thing if this was a general policy concerning the method by which permabanned users can (potentially) become reinstated, but to have something engraved in stone for Amazing is something else entirely. I mean what happens if this passes and he gets banned again? Does this automatically overturn that? Policy should really be withdrawn and this should take place as a community discussion, IMO. -MHSstaff 22:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. ~ 22:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Imo, it doesn't matter where it is. It's a vote to overturn a ban, being performed as a community vote, as specified in the wiki guidelines for this situation. Whether we have it in Open discussion or on a policy page is immaterial, frankly.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Polices should be a set of guidelines for how certain situations are handled on the wiki. At best, this is a one-time use case. If it passes, it will never be used again, nor will it ever impact anyone on this wiki except for the extremely specific case of Amazing at this exact moment in time.What is the point of having this listed with the other polices? Do you ever see yourself doing the following at any point in the future:

"Hey...how do I do that thing on the wiki? Good thing I have that "Getting Amazing Unbanned Only Once Policy" lying around. It'll do the trick!" I mean...really? Kinda sets a bad precedent IMO.-MHSstaff 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

PD has been used for it before, so the precedent is already in place.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I see a failed example but no passed examples. The closest would be the Update Software ones, but those at least affect everyone. I really only semi-care, but it seems weird to have a site-wide rule for just one user that is only valid at this exact moment in time. -MHSstaff 23:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's probably best here. A/PD is the place most associated with public votes on wiki matters, and regardless of scope, it's the avenue of democracy here. I see no reason to limit its use. 23:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the right place for it, would be in a poll section. This is the precedent that I remembered. UDWiki:Poll/Unban_Jedaz. But we can easily move it there later (or even now)... but I would leave it listed in the policy discussion area while active, because that is the place that people go to vote on stuff that relates to the administration of the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:43 21 February 2011 (BST)

I hate to sound lime a broken record but...as boxy. A poll would be the place for this kind of discussion. ~ 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you are agreeing with me... my position is that this is as good a place as any to hold this discussion. We can move it to UDWiki:Poll/Unban_Amazing at any time. Just vote as your conscience dictates. Voting nah because "we don't have a place, but this isn't it" is lame -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:52 21 February 2011 (BST)

Oh, ok you're right then. I'm not agreeing with you. ~ 14:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had a poll section. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The existence of a poll section was news to me too. -- Spiderzed▋ 14:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the poll section is similar to the guides or journal sections. maybe we should create the UDWiki:Poll page to clear things up? Something like this, or maybe just put it under UDWiki:Open Discussion? -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy is a grammatical abortion

That is all.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. a grammatical abortion -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 01:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's part of Hagnat's charm -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:09 21 February 2011 (BST)

An answer to several questions

Amazing via the email this user function said:

Hi, Sorry to get in touch. Isn't that an odd way to start a letter? Anyway, I saw your note on the wiki asking why my banishment was "unfair". I wouldn't use the term myself, just because it lends this "why me" connotation when someone decries something against them as unfair, but I wanted to answer the query. Hagnat, I feel like he's doing this for 85% seriousness and 15% lulz. As such, I don't feel like he really follows through as effectively as he could. My case here could be really effectively stated... But just to answer the question of fairness, here are a few simple points I'll try to state without bias. I'll try to be brief, but please forgive the fact that explanation is required. 1.) I was given a year-long ban for "selling porn on the wiki". This was in relation to the text that is now the "bike riding" crap on my User Page. This was not against any wiki guidelines, and instead people looked up Kevan's ToS with his host to find a clause about selling pornography. Why this is "unfair": I wasn't selling pornography, and even if I had been it wasn't against wiki guidelines... yet... which would probably warrent an unofficial warning, deletion of the ad, and an editing of the rules. 2.) I was banned before a verdict was reached. I believe it was LibrarianBrent who came out of retirement to issue the preemptive ban and disappear again. Why this is "unfair": I could be wrong - it's been a few years - but I think no actual verdict was reached in which the ban was ordered. 3.) Some past bans and warnings on my record were outside guidelines and one was even retracted but not removed from records. Why this is "unfair": I earned bans and warnings for arguing with people on talk pages, and even editing my own user talk page. These were not against guidelines, so I could not have had any ill intent nor forewarning that my actions were illegal. In one case, I successfully fought the mod action, but it was never removed from my record despite my asking. Keep in mind as well that this was the "wild west" of the UD Wiki and warnings/bans were handed out with less clarity and less established due process. 4.) My record was edited to achieve a year-long ban. Why this is "unfair": If you take a look at my record, you'll see a bunch of spots where warnings and bans were retroactively changed to fit with the desired result. For example, in the "wild west" days, you could be banned for 24 hours, then 24 hours again, then 24 hours a month later. It's not right to give a user a warning, then long after go back and say "btw, that was a 48 hour ban, now." Had I known this would happen, I definitely would have fought a lot of the old actions that didn't fit with any wiki guidelines and should have been expunged. Having an inoffensive blemish on your record is much different from having a strike that will gain you longer bans in the future. 5.) I was perma-banned for sharing an IP with God on the game, not the wiki. The user "God" was a co-worker (one of several) with whom I shared a computer in the back office of a comic shop. We stayed apart in UD, however, when he started on the wiki (admittedly with my help and giggling over his shoulder) I hadn't been there in a while. Wiki Mods checked God's IP on the wiki... it didn't match mine. So Kevan checked on the game, and bingo - his character's IP matched my character's. Why this is "unfair": I'm sure this is highly subjective and of course relies on whether or not anyone trusts the statement, but I'd think it's poor form to perma-ban two users for being alts (theoretically, at least) without having their IPs match on the wiki. 6.) All the stuff surrounding why people don't want me back. Ha! Why this is "unfair": It takes two to tango, but only one guy got cut from the dance competition. I was always on the defensive, never vandalized anyone's pages, and DID NOT CREATE WIKIGATE. ...No, really. I posted ONE arbitration case against multiple people who I saw as following me around, creating drama. From there, a UD Wiki moderator split the one case into many, many cases... even including people I hadn't made a case against, which I had to "drop." This is/was the biggest blemish on my Wiki-ing career and I didn't even do it. :B So yeah, that's a megaton of reading and I'm not even sure if you're still with me, so I'll end it there. I tried not to get too specific (Like: "Here are the names of everyone involved, here are links, blah blah blah....) but I do apologize for it's wordiness anyway. Thanks, C.W.

There you go. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

His email to me was a lot more endearing, walls like this, written like this, aren't want I want back on this wiki, tbh -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

He asked to present his case, and here it is. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

LoL. Please! -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:47 22 February 2011 (BST)

I've gone through your history case by case and this is the way I see it:

• Warning 1 - Unknown, before VB page created.
• Warning 2 - Unknown, before VB page created.
• 24 Hour Ban - Unknown, before VB page created.
• Warning 3 - Spamming Admin Pages, upheld at arbies.
• Warning 4 - Breach of arbitration ruling, Amazing accepts punishment. (Although personally I disagree with the ruling)
• 2 Hour Ban - Xoid jumps the gun on a spamming admin pages case, over-ruled at misconduct.
• 24 Hour Ban - Correct banning for the above case, upheld at Misconduct.
• 1 Year Ban - Bike Riding Case. Ruled unanimously as Not Vandalism. Brent turns up and Bans Amazing anyway.
• Escalation Changes - Previous escalations are changed. A Recent Sysop Decision has ruled that changing Vandal Data after the fact is not on.
• Permaban - God. Checkuser has no recent edits for Amazing by the time Kevan installs it, and he uses in-game IP to confirm. The issue isn't whether someone used a proxy on the wiki, it's whether IP shows they're the same person, which it does.

Overall, I think that the year ban was issued in error, and that Amazing shouldn't have recieved additional escalations. However, I agree with the permaban escalation, and I believe that Amazing should be unbanned and should be banned up to 48 hours (highest escalation he recieved validly, +1 for the permaban).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's cool you have actively looked through the ban record. I don't agree with the permaban, since I know both users in real life and I was there as well at times (in person) since I was very active on the wiki back then. Of course, that is not proof, just a testimonial. --Zod Rhombus 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Take note regarding the 1 Year Ban part that there was a misconduct case against Librarian made which upheld the ban, which is a bit of a fucking joke :| -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 08:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Zod, with the perma, you've got to respect the fact that based on the evidence at the time, the ban was legit, so that's what I was thinking there. I'll look in to the Brent misconduct case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, the year ban was as a result of Kevan intervening, so I reckon that ruling stands. In my opinion, he should return with escalations up to a weeks ban.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. Regardless of whether he should have been banned, it was a fucking sad thing to read. You don't ban someone, then discuss with the sysop team whether it's vandalism (especially since for the most part it was discussed and agreed to be not vandalism). You discuss it first then come to a conclusion THEN act. Regardless, if he's unbanned I highly recommend simply removing the permaban escalation and leave it at that. If he wants to come back so fucking bad he can work his way down from there. Especially since this (if he IS unbanned) is such a slippery precedent for community-overriding permabans we're facing. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I know it was fucking stupid, but if Kevan backed it as an arbies violation, it was an arbies violation. And it isn't creating any precedent which isn't already in the wiki's guidelines.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is fucking stupid. When it comes to UDWiki, Kevan is not the biggest authority as he did not spent as much time as those who were involved in this incident. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kevan's word is law. --VVV ^RPMBG 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Show me the part where it tells us how to alter a perma'd vandal's escalations after he's been voted back by the community? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that it says "Overturn a ban" or whatever, it's only a vote on the one ban (in this case the permaban) and so the other escalations wouldn't be effected. That's what I assumed, but it doesn't really say, so fair enough.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I would assume too, it's not right to just put all the other escalations to naught anyway. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if this goes through, I think it should be carried out like that - just reverting the perma, but if it was up to me, I'd handle it like I said above. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What? Old sysops had biases? WHY WAS I NOT INFORMED?!? Oh, wait. Nevermind. ;) Bias aside, if you are looking into things that occurred around that time, you will probably also want to look at the relevant sections of Kevan's User page archive for some additional details. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate content taken from main

• Update 13:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

People have been voting against this policy thinking it is just something for fun. It's not. I must admit it was kind of rushed (RL issues), and my wordings on the discussion of it lead people to believe that i don't have serious intentions with this policy. I do, as can be noticed by my many attempts to resolve this open issue in the past. Fact is, Amazing was harassed by many users (including myself and many of the sysop team at that time), and his defensive stance eventually led him to get banned. Allowing him to return will not revert the errors from both sides, but it will at least allow a once good contributor of this wiki to return and finish whatever things he still has open in here.

Another issue people have been voting against this policy is saying it isn't a policy per se and should've been created elsewhere. People should be voting on the issue itself, and we can simply discuss where to move it during the vote and/or when its closed.

Aaaannnddd... people asked how Amazing;s vandal record would be once this voting is over. I didnt though of that, but just giving him one warning or two before reverting him to his status quo should be more than enough for a user which prolly won't be as active or controversial as he did before. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 13:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course modifying a policy after voting has begun is always fine. Want to rewrite it? Withdraw it and resubmit it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

People say it isnt a policy, so whatever. Move it to the Poll section and lets be done with it :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As we all have to start again, its probably best you create a new page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn`t have spent all my free time last week having fun with you guys. It will be troublesome for me to do it this week :( --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 14:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Buddy I assumed this policy was for real. Also, as someone who voted "no" on the basis that this shouldn't be a policy to begin with, it doesn't seem fair for you to make your counter-argument in an "update" at the top of the page. Not to drag things out here, but that is a legitimate reason for people to vote against and you should probably move this entire section to discussion.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved from main, left a note, etc. As discussed. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh you buggers. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 01:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)