UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Amnesty

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

No. Idiocy. There are hundreds of users who have been banned who thoroughly deserve a permaban -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:59 15 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, and there are several of them which were banned because their actions only degenerated to the point where they made themselves deserve damnation because of persecution. Think Nalikill, think Izumi... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 15:11, 15 October 2008 (BST)

So in order to allow Nali and Izumi back (both of whom are too impulsive to avoid VB escalations for any amount of time, despite such escalations being struck after a few months of decent contributions), you are willing to open up the floodgates on every idiot who signs up only to vandalise the wiki? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:18 15 October 2008 (BST)

These two are only the tip of the iceberg... there are many users who were banned for the wrong reasons. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 15:39, 15 October 2008 (BST)

You need a policy that doesn't unban people like the 3pwv and adbots. That would at least be a step in the right direction.--Karek^maps?! 04:20, 16 October 2008 (BST)

If an actual hostile takeover of the wiki only gets you a 6 month ban then you can hardly justify a perma ban for minor vandalism.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:52, 15 October 2008 (BST)

	Wah!
	Save me from the evil overlord whose coup lasted all of 10 minutes!!!!111one

-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:59 15 October 2008 (BST)

Oh boxy, would you fuck off with all this "Grim was a victim" bullshit you're spreading all over the wiki: it's manure. Go and read Kevan's talk page: follow the links. READ THEM. Yes, that's right: he admits to hounding people from the wiki as part of a long-term planned takeover, in which he was going to get rid of Kevan. So, yes, wah, a lot of people didn't like being dictated to like that, and the community got rid of him instead. That's poetic justice. Hurrah. --Funt Solo ^QT 17:14, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Get fucked, Funt. What I posted up there in no way painted Grim as a victim, only a totally incompetent coup leader, unfitting as a subject of fear politics, and who has nothing to do with this discussion... but please, do continue down this populist, strawman path. I need the lulz -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:28 16 October 2008 (BST)

I guess I shouldn't have reacted to the fact that you've been trolling Nubis and Conn all over the wiki about the fact that the Misconduct cases against Grim didn't go your way. What was your plan, again? Just a soft warning? I'm sure that would've helped tremendously in providing lulz for everyone, for months to come. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:53, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Because Conn has contributed so much besides that in the last year.--Karek^maps?! 03:07, 17 October 2008 (BST)

Boxy never learned how to read. It's sad, really. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:48, 15 October 2008 (BST)

You're forgetting Boxy and Grim weren't exactly best buds in making the point that there's nothing to his point. I do also love that most of the people who have told you you all crossed a line are the same people Grim went on his little abusive tirades against. Funny, isn't it?--Karek^maps?! 04:20, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Stockholm Syndrome.--– Nubis ^NWO 06:24, 16 October 2008 (BST)

ಥ_ಥ--Karek^maps?! 07:41, 16 October 2008 (BST)

It wasn't only grim's persecution. I already admited, and feel ashamed, of being part of it too. Many other users too participated in this Witch Hunt... even when we didnt name it that way. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 17:18, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Way overkill. So, you're justifying the purging of all vandalism record before a certain point because of a policy change that only affects the top two levels? How about just allowing a perma-ban vote to those who got their perma before the policy change? If the perma is deemed unnecessary, they lose one escalation level, and then they can work it down themselves. Or maybe even allow a perma-ban vote to everyone, say, six months from their last infraction. Naturally, these would be available only upon request and not automatic. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

The policy you linked to (my Reduce Vandal Escalations) does have the possibility of permanent bans (as part of the escalation system), but only after a sysop vote. However, the system retains permanent bans for other cases not linked to escalations. How do you separate all those types of permanent ban when it comes to the amnesty you describe? (Additionally, that policy makes it clear that it does not cater for the backtracking described here.) We end up with the following types of permanent ban:

• Permanent ban through the old system's vandal escalations.
• Permanent ban through the new system's vandal escalations (via sysop vote).
• Permanent ban for vandal alt accounts.
• Permanent ban for adbots.
• Permanent ban for pure vandals.

There is also a problem with deleting vandal entries as if they never happened. They did happen. They should remain on record. The current system allows for people to make good their vandal record, except in the case of permanent bans. Perhaps they should be looked at on a case by case basis, rather than a general amnesty. If there is a specific user that you think has been unfairly banned from this wiki, then bring it up with the sysop team. Have a vote on it. Do what thou wilt. Be bold. But wiping the slate clean for everyone? A step too far, isn't it? --Funt Solo ^QT 17:11, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Can I get some clarity on this? Do you really suggest that we un-ban EVERYONE who has ever been banned before this June? As in EVERYONE, even proven vandals?--SirArgo ^Talk 19:20, 15 October 2008 (BST)

No, this is the dumbest way to go about this ever and exactly why I end up opposing this kind of policy inclusion every time it comes up. Debanning should be a case by case basis thing with Kevan actively participating in the discussion.--Karek^maps?! 04:20, 16 October 2008 (BST)

This is not only stupid but horribly inconsistant. If you're saying that Grim's rulings were always wrong then surely you should remove all of them, not just the ones that weren't in the last 4 months. These people knew at the time that what they were doing would result in a permaban, i'm sure they'll deal. If you really wanted them back turn all perma bans into one year bans or some shit but honestly, fucking bad policy.--xoxo 04:22, 16 October 2008 (BST)

No. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:07, 16 October 2008 (BST)

day-em, couldn't you have spammed <big>s, 2C style? --xoxo 09:13, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Bad idea. Allow for an appeal system, on a case-by-case basis.... maybe... Otherwise, this is... well... a massively bad idea. --WanYao 06:24, 17 October 2008 (BST)

What a stunning idea(!) Let's unban everyone with a perma and then not tell them(!) The only things that will reappear from this are adbots, in exactly the same way some are still reappearing from year long bans. The rampant stupidity of this idea staggers me, and remember, half of you are voting to give this guy sysop status! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:42, 17 October 2008 (BST)

(Which is why we vote on most administration decisions Iscariot) I must respectfully decline supporting this policy idea. I think that perhaps if the Policy reads "Sysops may revisit any permaban at (either any time or after six months have passed)and by a vote of (insert ratio to be decided here) lift the ban. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:54, 18 October 2008 (BST)

The whole point of a permaban is that it's permanent, if the sysops are giving them out undeservedly they should face the consequences, as well as have their actions undone later. This sounds to me like a freepass for sysops to do whatever they like and be entirely unaccountable (hmm, reminds me of a different policy of hagnats...) --xoxo 01:21, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but this is just stupid. If they've been dumb enough to get a Permaban, they really shouldn't be allowed back. -- Cheese 01:32, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Um...no...I worked very hard to get those people banned. They contributed nothing to the wiki so I used their lack of wiki knowledge against them by letting them vandalize themselves into a hole. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 22:58, 19 October 2008 (BST)

No genuine user of this wiki ever got a permaban without working their asses off to get it. Why should we throw out all their hard work and the effort they put into getting themselves kicked out of here? Think of all those sockpuppets and proxies that zoomy had to work through. To let her back in would be to discount the hard work she's put into being a vandal. For Zoomy's sake, don't adopt this poorly considered piece of tripe. --Stephen Colbert DFA 17:01, 20 October 2008 (BST)

• As Colbert. Why would we want to revisit that which has already been settled? You don't get multiple trials, and the specific examples you mention were responsible for enough wiki drama to last three lifetimes, so that seals it for me. I have not missed them. --Sarah Silverman 19:05, 22 October 2008 (BST)

Maybe it's me, but...

Why not gather a list of the permabanned users, then have the sysops review and discuss their cases, and then vote on if they should remain perma-banned or not, as per this policy. That'll end the discussion, won't it? You can even contact the banned users and see if they even want to come back, let alone give them the chance to plead their cases for rehabilitation. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 18:54, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Shouldn't be too hard, most of them are already listed here, just add Terminal Failure, Matthew Farenheit(requested), and Ahrimmagicks. All the rest listed as perma were hit under 3 strikes or account exists for impersonation rules and probably shouldn't reasonably qualify.--Karek^maps?! 19:23, 25 October 2008 (BST)

Well... yeah. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:09, 25 October 2008 (BST)

The impersonation accounts and the one-hit wonders should easily be decided upon by the sysop team, right? As for some of the others, such as people who have self-banned, shouldn't have to be permabanned, or at least not without a vote. If the sysop team can put a vote together that should take care of this policy without needed to put it into place. I'll verify if that works for Hagnat, if the two of you can check with the rest of the sysop team to see if they have any objections. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

i ran into some trouble with my thesis, so barely made it in here. I am fine with your idea, akule, and if you want to takeover this policy, be my guest. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 02:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! Time to check around. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be open to some form of review... But I think to overturn there would need to be more than just a majority vote to un-perma. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 20:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the current policy it requires just a majority vote in order to permaban a user, so I assume that what we would be doing would be to just give the already banned users the benefit that vote. If not a majority vote, what do you suggest? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I could do that. Sounds fair enough to me. -- Cheese 21:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting users up for review sounds better than just opening the floodgates. Doesn't sound terribly unfair, either. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor} 21:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think that it would be too hard to just make a blanket vote and list all of the one-edit wonders together, that way it prevents all of the impersonation or dupe accounts from coming back. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the voting of sysops up for review done by the community as a whole, or just sysops? Also are you talking 51%, 66%, 100% support or what? --xoxo 21:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about putting sysops up for review. I'm talking about having the sysops look over the permabanned users and apply this policy to those cases, so they can get the Permaban Vote that they are due. That's all. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Woah yeah i know what you meant, i just phrased that really badly :S Ummm when you say "apply[ing] this policy" do you mean having a vote over the banned user in question? Because that policy intrinsically is against this idea, "Users currently serving one-year or permanent bans (from escalations) cannot use this policy to retroactively end those bans. Those bans were earned under a system in which the users were aware of the punishments they would incur." If you want a new policy feel free but you should do it from scratch so it's completely clear what you want/mean. Even ignoring that clause i'm not clear on what users would apply for what you mean. --xoxo 22:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically, this policy was to effectively edit that section, but didn't state it and would have created its own policy. I just figured that if the sysop team was open for it, then I would rework this policy to become a line amendment to the reduce vandal escalations policy, thus giving the permabanned users the benefit of the new policy (since some people are open to that idea). Obviously we would add where impersonation accounts, one-hit wonders, and adbots would be exempt, leaving the list of those who would benefit to be rather short, but would satisfy most of the people who are interested in this policy and shut the door on the discussion. As for how many of the sysops are for it, so far, the six members of the sysop team who has seen my proposal has been up for some sort of review of the permabanned users. I've queried the rest of the sysop team to get their input on the matter. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah k. You should make a complete list of the users who do fit the criteria as i think the community who have by and large been affected by their vandalism should have a say. Are you thinking Izumi or whatever? I don't actually know who she is, but she tried to come back not long ago and Grim wasn't interested.--xoxo 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume it would affect anyone who was permabanned prior to the update and would be subject to the normal rules that were changed under escalation alteration. Technically, Izumi had so many alts that according to escalation alteration changes, "If this takes the user beyond 12 months, then they are automatically permabanned." I figure this clause was added specifically for Izumi, as the case was fresh in people's minds during that time. Now I imagine that could be up for sysop discussion if they are open to it, since presumably Izumi wanted to reform, but was denied that chance, so technically he/she would effectively be the "poster child" for this amendment. If the sysop team votes against it, Izumi would have at least had the benefit of having the sysop team look at the case in order to look over the details and see if the case merits a second chance. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like a decent idea. I think a consensus of 2/3 (66.67%) or 3/4 (75%) would be the best to facilitate the un-banning of a user. --ZsL 22:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate. Effectively if a previously banned user was voted to be unbanned, their banning level would be at whichever level they should be at when they were permabanned, and they would be subject to the normal vandal escalation guidelines and would be eligible for being able to "work off" their vandal data, much like any other user could. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'd go with 75% yes' for an unbanning. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd assume that due to busy schedules and whatnot, we give you guys a decent amount of time to vote and to maximize the amount of sysops that participate. This way we could get a majority of the sysop team involved. We could probably set up some sort of subpage or something in the admin area where people could check in, review the cases, and then vote. Around a month as a rough deadline for the cases to be reviewed and voting to be completed. After all, they've been banned for a while, what's another month, eh? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Eeh, 2 weeks. Normal discussion/voting on just about anything doesn't even last that long, so a month is a bit much. I would suggest UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Ban Review as a name, maybe? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I suggested the month is because some of the sysops have a few things on their plate, some haven't been active in a little while, and I believe Karek mentioned he was going to be mostly gone for four weeks. Of course, if you guys get it done quicker than that, we can end it sooner. That page works as the place for your discussion. We can make the main page a sysop comment only page, with the community able to make their own comments on the discussion page, much like the main vandal banning page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, a month but if everyone gets their vote in, the decision can be made then. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my thought. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 23:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're planning this, you have to put it through a policy discussion. Otherwise you are going to create an institutionalised forum where sysops go directly against policy. Perma is exactly that, permanent. If you want that to change then the community must have the chance to review this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It will, that's why this is on Policy Discussion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That's good, because this was looking like a planning segment on the talk page of an abandoned policy... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We're just conserving space, the amnesty title still works for this policy I think. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It will become a line edit of this policy to reverse the No Backtracking part of the discussion and allow permabanned users the chance to "get out of jail". --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would be against this. The current sysops don't have enough of the details of the offenses committed by most perm-banned users. Second guessing the ruling sysops years later is not a good idea -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:37 4 November 2008 (BST)

Some of us (me) were there when it happened, and most of the stuff can be found in page histories.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I know there are a few who have been around for all of these vandals, but you are in the minority now, and the page histories have been wiped. We'd be trusting your memory of long ago events for some of the most important things about the case, including the severity of any vandalism committed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:22 6 November 2008 (BST)

For the ones I have listed so far, we have sysops or users who are still around who were involved with the cases. Everyone and their mother was involved with Amazing; Conndraka and Cyberbob were involved with Maxwell Hammer; Cyberbob was involved with Psycho Billy; Matthewfarenheit's first ban was the sysop who was involved with Master c's ban (which you can see the reasons for the ban below), but looking at the cases around it, I see you and Hagnat were around at that time; Hagnat was involved with jjames; practically everyone present heard or was involved with Izumi; and Hagnat was involved with Ahrimmagicks. There isn't any second guessing involved with this proposal. I'm just asking the current sysops to review the cases and then make a vote to determine if a user merits a second chance. Any consideration of Amazing will require Kevan's input, but the rest are relatively minor cases. As for the one-edit vandals, the spree vandals, the sockpuppet vandals, and the adbots, I am not proposing that they be put up for consideration (the sysop team can consider them if they want). I don't think the changes made by this policy would or should affect those users, as the permanent ban (without vote) was not changed for vandal alt accounts, adbots, and pure vandals. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No one that I can remember has been perm-banned for "relatively minor cases", it is ridiculously hard to get a permban on this wiki through the escalation system (as opposed to 3 vandal edits/spambots), and always has been -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:22 6 November 2008 (BST)

Users This Would/Could Affect

I'll be making a list below of users who could be affected. I haven't finished sifting through all of the data, but if anyone else wants to put in someone who was permabanned and explain why they should get a chance at a vote, feel free.

1. Amazing - Everyone saw that coming right? He should get a vote.
2. Maxwell Hammer - After sifting through so many pages of the 3 page vandal alts, I found Maxwell Hammer. He's banned after one warning for being an alt of ReeToric, who is amusingly enough banned for being an alt of Maxwell Hammer. On top of that, several IPs were blocked in order to prevent him from making another account.

   Maxwell was banned for numerous edits including tubgirl pics uploaded to the mainpage. In addition, each of those said edits was also in violation of an arbitration ruling against him. the listed IPs were IPs used by him on various sites including but not limited to this wiki. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   That's a good explanation of why he was banned. I see the Vandal Data page for him needs to be corrected. This was the first instance, which got him his first warning. His second was for his alt, ReeToric, which sould be added to his vandal data as a reference. His arbitration case doesn't state anything about that he should be banned if he made an edit, so the edits he created under ReeToric should have increased his warning count to two (or at the very least warranted a 24 hour ban), instead of outright banning him for good. I think this case is an excellent example of one worth for voting over. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   He was prohibited from editing any DHPD page... doing so is to be considered vandalism with two warnings already given... he executed enough edits (not to mention that they were vandalism in their own right) to warrant the Perma. I will point blank tell you.. if someone with this kind of dedicated vandalism is going to get reconsidered, the whole idea of revisiting the bans is flawed. You might as well get rid of the whole escalation/banning process. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

   Uh, no. I am not talking about reconsidering it. I'm just saying that if you follow the revised guidelines he would get a vote. You've already made a strong case for why he shouldn't be allowed to be unbanned. Do you really think that 75% of the sysop team will vote for the unbanning of Maxwell Hammer after your argument? If not, then what is there to worry about? The policy that I am proposing will just be for the vote (75% majority required) of the users that would have benefited from the revised guidelines, and not to automatically unban all of these users. If the ban is upheld, then no one can say that Maxwell Hammer didn't get a fair shake. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Psycho Billy - According to his vandal data, he shouldn't be banned. I noticed that Gage permabanned him without much discussion, and we can't verify his edits. According to the ban guidelines, he would come in at ban 2.

   Vaugly remember this one... Amazing Alt? someone refresh me here...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

   Can you do a checkuser to verify? Looking over the discussion page, his talk page, and the two reports there is no mention of Amazing at all. His talk page does only show warnings for two of his cases, where Cyberbob gave him his final warning before the ban. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

4. Master c - Had 8 edits, with two being considered vandalism. According to his vandal banning case he was outright banned despite having non-vandalism edits and had account creation blocked.
5. Jjames - According to his vandal data he should have a lot of reports left, even if he is Scinfaxi, which this vandal banning case suggests.
6. Izumi Orimoto - Yeah, you saw this one coming too. Who knows, the sysops might give her that one extra chance.
7. Ahrimmagicks - After his edits under Sigman he made a few alts requesting to be given an extra chance. If you include Sigman's ban to Ahrimmagicks total, and include the three other accounts and seperate bans, he'd get a permaban vote.

What about User:Matthewfarenheit ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I got up to Late September of 2007 before I had to take a break. I'll do some more tomorrow. This is where I was looking. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the remainder of the pages just shows me a lot of vandal accounts and pure vandals. I don't see any more other than the requested bans of: User:Matthewfarenheit, User:J2DaGangsta, and User:Codename C and the self-ban of Grim. Also, shouldn't Grim's indefinite ban be changed to six months, as per this vote?. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not unban Matt unless he requests it first.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 12:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So I assume that you support the idea of reviewing cases for those users who would have benefited from this policy and have a vote to see if they should be unbanned or not? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not support this policy and/or thread.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 13:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The revision that I have proposed or the prior policy? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reading over this list makes me move my vote to NO. At first, I wanted to consider it on a case by case, but honestly I can't say that any of these cases have moved me to even slightly consider an unbanning. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can see revisiting the Amazing and Izumi cases if only for the lack of real substance and hostility towards the wiki in them and the fact that some of Amazing's stuff is directly related to another permabanned vandal's harassment. Not to mention that there are some things missing from the records that I couldn't even dig up with the waybackmachine. The rest though, I don't see any justifiable reason to give another chance.--Karek^maps?! 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that these people need to be unbanned, just that these are the people who would have benefited from this policy. The basic idea is that if the amendment passed, the sysop team would get together and vote over those users who didn't get their sysop vote. If the sysop team votes against all of the cases and doesn't feel that any of them deserve that second chance, then the argument that they didn't get a fair shake is removed. We're talking about a 75% majority to unban a user, so when Boxy, Thari, and you don't feel any of those users deserve a chance, then in order for any them to be unbanned, the other 9 sysops would all have to agree on them. Several of the other sysops feel that at least the discussion and the vote could be made. What's the harm of that? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How often would these amnesties be put forward? As often as it takes for supporters of some banned vandal or other to get them unbanned? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:22 7 November 2008 (BST)

I'm assuming this is a one time deal just to make sure the above have been reviewed in a manner that is compatible with the policy as it now reads...Otherwise you could be in a Roe V Wade Environment waiting for someones perma to be overturned every time there is a new sysop. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. We don't want every permabanned user to be overturned, but rather to have the few that could have benefited from this change to have that consideration. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They would only be considered once and after that they would not be eligible again, save for another overhaul to the vandal banning system. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 16:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So...

Dead or what?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tis. I'm archiving it. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)