UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Unban Amazing

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

Basically, Amazing was a controversial user. He was disliked by many, admired by few, and a good guy to play with (even when he threatened half the wiki into misconbitration). If we take the abirtration cases out of the equation, thouhj, he was a good contributor of the wiki and helped in many areas of the wiki. Most of the users which antagonized with him are now gone, and he desires to come back to the wiki merely to be able to edit his own user page.

Unbanning Amazing will allow a former wiki dinosaur to return to the wiki, and at least leave his own user page a lil bit better.

Note: Hagnat added content to this policy discussion after voting started, and therefore is illegitimate if the vote for this policy is to proceed. You can still read the content here.

Vote Here

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.

Yes

1. I was one of the users who was part of the entire issue against amazing and want to see him back, i dont see why others wouldnt People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Start of good things, next step Cornhole--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Yarp. 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
4. He was goaded into being banned by individuals using worse tactics. It was unwarranted. --Zod Rhombus 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes... but this should not really be a Policy. In fact we should probably have a Policy to deal with such requests (rare though they are) --Honestmistake 21:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
6. As Zod--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 01:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
7. EXACTLY AS ANIMESUCKS --Suburban Ed 01:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Yes as per what Zod said--Xan2020 01:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Anime poked me til I came out of retirement -- 
   •   Timmah!  
   •   Talk  
   03:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes.--Rapture 03:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
11. See my rationale on the talk page. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
12. As Aichon, but with a flavouring of Zod. In other words, I don't think this is the right way to do it, but I don't think that means I should default to a no vote. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Yes - Hatama 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
14. Yes.. I demand that Amazing is freed for great justice! --GioV ^{DORIS|Red Rum} 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Heck yeah! I mean... why the heck not?--Calvinxbao 06:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Yes - i accept his explanation re supposed alt abuse and retract my no vote --C Whitty 22:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
17. Sure - Here I thought I was Amazing. ;) Seriously, though. I can see ordering things properly would de-escalate him down to be able to come back. It's been over four years since he was last on, so I imagine he has changed. The mood of the wiki is completely different, and there is a different sysop team. I don't see that it would hurt to give him another chance. Of course, that is provided that Kevan lets him come back. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
18. Ja. --Anotherpongo 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Inhale Cannabis Sativa Every Single Day --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
20. uh yeah --Jimdo 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
21. I was around for at least some of the time when Amazing was active, and my memory of the time is a bit murky. But I do remember there have been mods on this wiki who were too trigger happy on the vandal banning page, and I don't have confidence that he was treated fairly there. At any rate, it has been almost five years now since the ban, so another chance is not unreasonable. Oh, and I agree with others below that a system to review bans for other users too might be worthwhile. --Toejam 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No

1. Exactly the same reasons as Michaelson, but with a negative vote. You've yet to explain to people why Amazing's banning was unfair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
2. No - Policy is clearly a joke made for the amusement of the policy maker. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
3. No. -- Cheese 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Nope. I don't really have anything against the guy and wouldn't mind if he was unbanned. I disagree with the method, though. I'll continuously vote no on these types of policies. Come up with a better way. ~ 22:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Even if it was serious, it's incomplete. Why should we be doing this? How has he changed? What will he A/VD look like if he's unbanned? Will it be reset or will he still have all previous escalations attached to it? Why should we be unbanning a user who was permabanned, then broke the rules again by using the wiki with multiple accounts? What does his userpage matter, and why are you, Hangat, so seemingly obsessed with the state of his userpage? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

   Amazing personally replied to a comment I made above via email and has answered it in his own terms, which is why I've removed it. After speaking with him, I wouldn't mind Amazing himself being unbanned but like Aichon has said below, we need a formal way of approaching this rather than just going loose on any banned vandal via A/PD, I think we need rules and restrictions to make sure any old vandal can't just have themselves appeal every time. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

6. No - I was never around for the Amazing dramas so I don't know what to think about the ban. However I'm opposed to writing policies for the benefit or detriment of one specific user (regardless of precedent). My feeling is that we should only introduce policies to address issues that are relevant to the entire wiki community.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 01:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
7. As Giles. I don't care whether Amazing is unbanned or not, but I say NO to making a policy just for one guy. Re-submit this as a policy for users who request to be unbanned. -- †  talk ? f.u. 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC) (removed it from the numbering 'coz it's not really a vote for the policy, more of where I think it should go... -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)) (meh, there's a PD underway about this now anyway... -- †  talk ? f.u. 12:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC))
8. No - My vote has nothing to do with the guy, and everything to do with the fact that this is not the right way to handle this sort of thing. —Aichon— 02:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
9. No - As Aichon. --DT^PK 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
10. No - I vote no for the lulz. --Penguinpyro 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
11. No - I vote no (apologies for the multiple edits, as I'm just discovering how to use signatures) --Louis Vernon 15:11 21 February 2011 (BST)
12. I was around when Amazing was banned, but I was still a fairly new user and had no idea what was going on. I, however, know him off the Scroll Wars wiki, and I have to say...He was cool for a few weeks, but became a complete ass. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
13. No - As Giles. -MHSstaff 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
14. no not that it wouldn't be entertaining. and i think you are all dirty bike riders to begin with.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

    i found some amazing video of amazing driving his car.--

    

    bitch 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

15. No - As Giles. Asheets 20:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
16. No - No special exemptions for anyone who's been permabanned. Period. Make a policy which sets guidelines for such appeals, say after a 2 year absence? Maybe. But no case-by-case special treatment bullshit. --WanYao 08:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
17. No - As Giles, as Aichon Damien falcon 03:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
18. No - Like the others - make a policy for an appeals system for anyone. Then, we'll all be amazing. Heh. -Funt Solo ^QT 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
19. No - Personally I've never had anything against the guy and have on multiple occasions had pleasant correspondence with him however, he was not banned lightly and while he was harassed the final purpose behind his ultimate exclusion from the wiki was and is still valid. He quite thoroughly violated the terms of use for the webhost and website. You don't overturn something like that. --Karek^maps?! 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This Policy has failed, having gained less than 2/3rds support. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)