UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Policy and Banning

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

This policy would forbid users from making policies that ban or unban specific users, or change their vandal records in any way. Specific language that states that moderators must be willing to unban users at the community's request will be removed from the guidelines. Bannees can appeal their cases to moderators via email, or bans can be reversed through misconduct proceedings if fault has been found with the banning process.

-- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. I agree that there needs to be a way for members to recall banned members to balance potentially unfair bans; But such a policy needs to apply to ALL members of the Wiki for the sake of fairness and NOT just specific individuals. Ban Appeal Polices: For All or For NONE. --MorthBabid 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. This is about limiting policies for specific users... Conndraka^{mod T CFT} 21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Sounds good to me --Sirens^{T RR} 22:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

   Clearly we need to look at developing some sort of "parole" system. But I firmly believe that policies should be of general applicability. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Nope, after thinking about it, I think Xoid's right. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 09:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

4. This makes sense, this keeps the policy page open for things that really need to be discussed instead of people being dumb and trying to ban someone. -- Zombienic 12:46, 16 November 2006

Against

1. There needs to be a way for members to recall banned members, if that's what they want. However, I do agree that the vandal records should not be erased. -Certified=Insane^☭ 20:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. All this strikes me as a thinly veiled "don't let Amazing back" vote. Regardless of what you may think of him, it shouldn't be policy- and if you think it should be, then voting "yes" on a policy that says "no policies for specific users" is just ridiculous. --Ron Burgundy 08:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   I will be the first to admit that I don't want Amazing back, but this was not a specific policy focussed against him or his buddies, but against the precedent they're forming. If, at any time, without restrictions, people can throw up policies banning or unbanning other users, then there's really no way to control it, other than using M/D, which, fancy, you also don't support. It's a loophole that needs closing, or limiting in some way. I appreciate your concerns but I'd rather like to hear some ideas from now on, because your contributions to policy that I've noticed thus far have been "snipe it down in the voting process". -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 10:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   You're right, I don't think policies should be deleted or hindered- so long as we're not being spammed by an unmanageable number of them, of course. I think most people would agree with me when I say that between having to vote "no" on some suitably finite number of frivolous unbanning policies and losing the ability to vote "yes" on a single justifiable one, I'll choose the former. --Ron Burgundy 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

3. I'm with Ron on this one. Pillsy ^FT 09:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. "Specific language that states that moderators must be willing to unban users at the community's request will be removed from the guidelines." I have to vote against that. It says that the wishes of the community should not be upheld. I think that the wishes of the community should be upheld. --Funt Solo 14:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. God forbid, but I am against this. Regardless of how much I loathe that prick, I'm not voting For on a policy which has the potential to prevent reversing an unpopular ban. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 23:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re: But this doesn't? It's just saying that such polices to reverse unpopular bans must apply to ANY user thus banned, not specific individuals. You couldn't make a "Unban User:JoeBob" policy, but you could make a policy which would dictate a way to deal with reversing bans for ALL Users. Or am I quite misinformed? --MorthBabid 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   Re: Can you pretty please not use bullets when indenting? Anyway, to answer your question: this line — "Specific language that states that moderators must be willing to unban users at the community's request will be removed from the guidelines." — leaves avenues closed to unban someone inbetween when the policy you're proposing is made and when (if?) it's voted in. Anyone banned inbetween then is caught in limbo — with no way to appeal bans other than at misconduct. Because we go by the system of "whatever the rule was at the time", they'd never get a chance to get back. It doesn't matter if absolutely everyone but a majority of active moderators wanted someone unbanned, their only recourse would be to ask Kevan directly.

   Essentially? I'm voting against for the same reason I voted against on the 'For God so Loved Amazing' policy; I am not going to put up with the bitching that will come if anything goes astray inbetween when this policy goes active and when this policy is fixed. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 23:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

   That's very reasonable. I was rather nervous about that language myself but I figured that following the "Unban Jedaz" poll thing that is the policy avenue was closed off people could just spam unban polls, and frankly those sorts of polls have had a shaky history of relevance to actual policy. -- Alan Watson ^T·RPM 23:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

6. see Xoid's comments.--Blood Panther 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Keep - For once I agree with Xoid on something. Democracy is fun, kids!--J Muller 01:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Because "[m]oderators must be willing to unban users at the community's request." I still believe that policies should be of general applicability, but this creates an issue possibly as big as the one it might solve. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 09:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
9. AGAINST As with the constitution, I don't think that we should be "legislating" to specific cases. That's something the Admins should handle and have their own "rule-book" for. If this were something wide-focused, I'd say implement. Daniel Hicken 17:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

   I'm confused, this isn't about a specific case per se, but the wider scope of preventing policies that focus on specific users. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 18:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

10. Strikes me as... bad... --Agent White ^{WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS} 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Language in this is icky but I think I get it now. Good enough I guess. - 343 ^U! 02:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
12. I find the bit quoted by Funt Solo problematic. Much for the same reason, really. --Rgon 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
13. I can vote now thanks to page preview. --genie in a bottle ^{♥ - zone} 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
14. I must vote against due to this language: "Specific language that states that moderators must be willing to unban users at the community's request will be removed from the guidelines." If that sentence was removed, I would reconsider my position. — Phoenixshade ^TJ!•T•UD 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
15. Ronnie's principle sounds on the money regarding this.--The Envoy 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

    --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    Late vote struck, sorry Darth. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)