UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Unban Amazing

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.

• 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)

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)

    Yes. Hatama - sign properly, vote non-compliant -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

11. See my rationale on the talk page. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:12, 22 February 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 alt abuse --C Whitty 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. No - As Aichon. --DT^PK 03:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
11. No - I vote no for the lulz. --Penguinpyro 03:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. 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)