UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Amnesty

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 lolz -- 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 lolz 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)