UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibit Sysop Misconduct Self-Punishment

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Adminy stuff

With your permission I'd like to move this to "/Prohibit Sysop Misconduct Self-Punishment", both to fix that typo and to make it fit a bit more with the slightly more generic text. Cyberbob  Talk  10:40, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Let me at least comment on the bloody policy before edit conflicting me!! ;P Yes... Move it, please and thanks. --WanYao
tis done. Cyberbob  Talk  10:51, 6 September 2009 (BST)

Policy Discussion

I am proposing this policy so that, in the future, potentially controversial situations such as this can be avoided. To me it seems common sense that the person being "punished" shouldn't decide what their penalty should be. In effect, that's what the status quo in Misconduct allows -- or potentially allows -- to happen. I propose we close this loophole. --WanYao 10:43, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I think it's a good-ish idea, though this really could be solved simply by the other sysops dealing out whatever punishment they would have given anyway on top of the self-inflicted stuff. Failing that, though, this is fine. Cyberbob  Talk  10:47, 6 September 2009 (BST)
You're right, in theory. The problem in practice is that, as it stands, if a sysop "pulls a nubis" :) and bans themselves, discussion can be too easily closed just by a 'crat saying something like this...
boxy said:
"Nubis has banned himself for 24hrs, so this case is pretty much closed"
This is what made people upset: the immediate shutting down of the discussion. Even if there was nothing official about it, the "power of the suggestion" is too strong, as so it the possibility of abuse -- or perception of abuse. Better to close the loophole, imo. --WanYao 11:02, 6 September 2009 (BST)
Okies. Cyberbob  Talk  11:05, 6 September 2009 (BST)
I agree with this. It isn't really much of a punishment if you do it yourself. Also, cutting off a discussion is bad. I must say I like Bob's "on top off" method. This way we can just ignore the self-ban, and we don't need to make a separate misconduct case for it like Jed did.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 11:38, 6 September 2009 (BST)
Imo it just makes more sense, and is easier and more straightforward, to disallow the sysop from banning themselves. Although the abuse argument is legit (I made it after all), I don't think it's a necessary argument for this policy to make sense. "Just ignoring" the self-bans, etc. makes things too complicated and has the potential to lead to more drama than just banning self-bans, period. Make sense? --WanYao 17:52, 6 September 2009 (BST)
Isn't much of a punishment if you do it yourself? What, when someone like Cheese pushes the button it hurts more or something? They push the button EXTRA HARD to make that much more of a point? If the accused isn't fighting the punishment then no matter who applies it it won't have any more meaning.
How can you say it shut down all conversation? I wasn't going to be in there defending myself so clearly they could have continued on had there been anything more to discuss. It wasn't like there was even a tie or a chance of any different outcome. Did you just want them to go on and maybe come up with a lesser punishment or slap on the wrist? That's what normally happens in cases that drag on on A/M and then you all bitch about how the sysops let each other off too easily. Out of the last few cases that have been voted Misconduct how many actually ended with a punishment (other than the ones I inflicted on myself)? Seriously, I would love to know if anyone else has looked into that.
Other than J3D's demotion what was the last punishment given out by the sysop team? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
How many cases have we had that just grind to a halt with a tie vote and no one can be arsed enough to actually do anything other than archive it undecided?
So, which is better? A case that actually ends with a punishment or one that drags out until it is a slap on the wrist and a wag of the old finger? You seem to want that to be the case since you are so adamant about dragging on discussion.
It's not like the community can't pipe in during a case. All comments are to be made on the main page and not the talk page on A/M. It's not like someone couldn't go to a Crat's talk page and say, hey, I don't think that is fair, can you re-open that case?
But, no, making a policy is a much better idea that completely makes sense.
Wan hates things that are difficult and would actually require some thought about how they should be applied and used. That's probably one of those lines in the guidelines that he would like to get rid of. Why don't we write tons of policies and then give everyone sysop powers? That would be fair. If there is no room for sysop discretion in anything then everyone can be a sysop. --– Nubis NWO 19:15, 6 September 2009 (BST)
Of course it all comes down to something that will permit you to call me a name. Good argument there, Nubis. --WanYao 01:11, 7 September 2009 (BST)
Two words: "troll baby". Cyberbob  Talk  01:19, 7 September 2009 (BST)
Actually, the phrase I usually use is "troll-child". Note, also, the use of the hyphen. Thanks. --WanYao 02:52, 7 September 2009 (BST)
Just going by your little dummy spit in IRC yesterday. Cyberbob  Talk  02:57, 7 September 2009 (BST)

Other than J3D's demotion what was the last punishment given out by the sysop team? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? - Oookkaayy... i want this camera of yours removed from my house. I was watching this movie yesterday. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:35, 7 September 2009 (BST)

sysops should not issue their own bans in any circumstances other than them needing an enforced break. Simply put if the ban is for less than 24 hours there is nothing to stop them effectively avoiding the ban by issuing it before they go to bed and thus sleeping through a very large portion of it, if its longer a similar effect can be achieved if they happen to ban themselves for the weekend. I am not saying this has happened but there is no reason to make it easy to do and arguments that this rule would prevent a sysop holding his hands up and saying "no contest" are nonsense. They could still do it and let the next 'op to come online issue the ban--Honestmistake 12:26, 7 September 2009 (BST)

"Sysops should not issue their own bans". Exactly. It's that simple.
This policy is not about the severity of "punishments". It's not about "strangling" anyone. It's about common sense.
Sysops should not issue their own bans. I'm not sure why anyone would take that sensible and reasonable suggestion as some kind of assault on sysops' ability to do their jobs. --WanYao 15:51, 7 September 2009 (BST)
What is the difference in who issues the ban if the ban is the same? By saying that it has to be someone else you are just enforcing the idea that you want it all to be punitive. That's pretty damn petty.
What was the last punishment given out on an A/M misconduct case voted Misconduct?
These are two good points that no one has a response to. And the idea that you could apply your ban so that you get most of it while you are sleeping just goes to show me how too involved in this place you are, Honest. Next are you going to propose that bans are broken up into 16 hour segments making sure to only be applied while the user is likely to be online as determined by the IP time zone? --– Nubis NWO 23:30, 7 September 2009 (BST)
To respond to your questions, in order.
a) Of course a Misconduct penalty has a punitive element. However this policy is not about about creating stiffer penalties -- no matter how much you try to assert that it is. What I am suggesting -- and I'm not sure why I have to say this over and over and over again -- is that sysops should not issue their own bans. It's a conflict of interest issue. It doesn't stop anyone from pleading "No contest" in the manner boxy described below. It's a straightforward, logical suggestion the reasoning behind which I'd think would be self-evident.
As for the stuff Honestmistake said about tweaking the system, etc... Honestmistake said that. Not me. I don't agree with or endorse those statements and they have nothing to do with the letter or the spirit of my policy. So please keep them seperate from my position.
b) What relevance does that have? Imnsho absolutely zilch. --WanYao 00:30, 8 September 2009 (BST)
So, why is Misconduct punitive but vandal banning isn't? That's a might double standard there. If it is punitive why doesn't it have a better punishment ladder? What power does misconduct have over a sysop?
As I've clearly shown - NONE. Maybe you should be fixing the actual process of Misconduct cases instead of attacking me (one of the few sysops that actually suggests -and applies- a punishment on a case)? What you are setting up here that you continue to ignore is a situation where the other sysops can "talk down" the punishment.
Here's why I don't like your little idea about sysops not being able to ban themselves. It would piss me off if I was in the middle of something (orphans/category/templates whatever) and got banned because I didn't quit all my work and join the drama bomb that is a misconduct case. Sometimes, life and work go on even when your name is on A/M.
Why in the hell is it unreasonable for someone that accepts the punishment and is capable of doing it to not be able to do it when they have come to a stopping point in their work? Because, contrary to your little view of me, I actually do work on here that isn't A/M fodder or ignoring red tape. I do dull things like adding instructions and categories to templates, linking orphans, and unmerging locations.
But, no, let's not fix the main problem (Misconduct). Let's just make a policy that probably only has one precedent in the history of the wiki. There's a pressing need for a policy!! --– Nubis NWO 15:14, 8 September 2009 (BST)
Your persecution complex got boring a long time ago. --WanYao 16:15, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Discipline & Punish

In repsonse to Nubis' rants about punishment/not punishment, my hypocrisy, etc. etc. blah blah blah... I'd like to point out that the misconduct policy itself refers to -- and I quote -- "punishment". Now, let's move on. --WanYao 16:41, 9 September 2009 (BST)

OOoo wan won't you discipline and punish me...--xoxo 05:53, 14 September 2009 (BST)

No contest

Basically what is going on in these cases is that the sysop is pleading "no contest" to the case, and taking a punishment that is over and above what is going to be the likely outcome. This is a good thing. I've done it before, despite disagreeing with the ruling (when I re-banned grim preemptively).
Even if you don't agree that this is what happened in the recent case, it's still not a reason to ban all instances of a sysop agreeing to ban themselves to finish cases without going through days of pointless drama.
If a sysop tries to abuse this, by picking a penalty below what the rest of the team thought was appropriate, they wouldn't be able to get away with it anyway, because the discussion can still continue if anyone thinks they deserve more -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:09 6 September 2009 (BST)

This policy isn't intended to affect sysops pleading "no contest" in the manner you outlined. That could still be done. The intent of the policy is simply to disallow a sysop from taking the physical action of banning themselves: another sysop would have to physically implement the agreed upon ban. Would that slow the system down a bit, and allow the opportunity for more debate (or somethimes drama)? Yes, it would: that is part the point. But at least as important is the idea of closing the loophole which can rightly be seen a bit of a non sequitor at best -- a blatant conflict of interest at worst -- i.e. the punishee enacting the punishment themselves.
Also, to make it perfectly clear, this affects only Misconduct cases -- it is not intended to affect the times when a sysop might ask for a "voluntary ban" via A/VB, for example as I think hagnat and SA(?) have done in the past to force a "break" from the wiki on themselves. --WanYao 17:41, 6 September 2009 (BST)
It's not a conflict of interest at all. It's something that a sysop can do to make it easier on the rest of the sysop group, by taking the punishment themselves, and making it so that none of the others have to bring out the banstick on an otherwise productive member of the community. I see no point in making another sysop do the physical banning... in fact I can see discussion just lingering as they debate how over the top the chosen punishment may be. The only reason J3D started bitching was because "discussion just stopped". He's a drama-whore, all that needed saying, had been said (wall'o'text)
This policy is going to achieve nothing but to increase the drama potential of the current troublemakers and serial whingers -- boxy talkteh rulz 11:01 8 September 2009 (BST)

Let me get this straight. So, you basically want A/M to become walls of text, J3D/Bob quip central, repetitive arguments, and pointless drama? You want to insult the other sysops (again) by saying that they are too weak willed to continue on a discussion when someone takes an action on a case? You want the whole process to be drawn out and pointlessly argued back and forth allowing many parties that are not involved to get their say in when they are saying either the exact same thing as the other sysops or aren't even following the whole debate?

You think this will somehow help the wiki by preventing a mea culpa action? Is the real problem the fact that I don't see a 24 hour ban as a scary thing? Is it the fact that Misconduct has no real authority since the "Popularity Vote" policy effectively nerfed it?

The problem is that there is no real ladder in Misconduct because every case has to be decided on its' own merits. (although many people do hold grudges and make it quite clear that they are voting on them) You think every case should be on the page for a certain amount of time? What about the ones that are voted Not Misconduct? Should those stay on there to be debated ad nauseam in case some rogue sysop pops in with a Misconduct vote at the last minute? Since it seems that many people think no matter when a vote is cast that it should be counted.

And how is the idea of double punishment fair at all? Are you really afraid that someone is going to come along in a case like those and say YES! THIS IS THE DEMOTION CASE! Hag had several Misconduct cases and Grim only had the one but clearly the gravity of the case determined the outcome. Even in J3D's case the abuse of checkuser information is much more serious than deleting an image that is a copyright violation and clearly didn't belong on the wiki. To be honest, a 24 hour ban was serious overkill for that action, but since I hate the pointless drama and really dislike giving that tribe any attention I ended it with the first punishment suggested. It seems Cheese really had a hard on for banning me because he thinks I am a problem child.

But, I like how everyone is rallying around to save their precious "porn" and can ignore all the evidence I had that the website it was taken from strictly prohibits the use of their property and somehow this wiki's policy of having to be "requested to be removed" trumps US Copyright Laws. That's rather egotistical of this place. It's almost like people didn't read the case and just saw my name and the word deletion and voted based on that. But that's just paranoia right? Not like people are going to go around making policies JUST based on me?

Oh, wait...

But, yes, Wan, let's make more policies to strangle this place. Maybe instead of writing a policy like this people should just stop uploading inappropriate or "illegal" images in the first place? We shouldn't have to have a debate on what porn is. This is supposed to be a game resource as everyone cries about, not some playground for trolls that have nothing better to do than to push limits. The argument that if violence is allowed that sex should be allowed is asinine as well since this is a wiki for a game about zombies and not some Second Life cybersex wiki. Offensive names are banned, obscene page titles are deleted, but should someone post an image of a chick with a coke bottle shoved up her cooch that is somehow art and must be protected and debated on? What the fuck is wrong with you people that you can't see how inappropriate that is for what this place is?

I'm not talking about "think of the children!". I am speaking about the basic core of what this place is. It's about the text based game. It should be neutral articles on weapons, skills, locations, and search/combat rates. But no, that would be a boring place that only first time players would visit. This has to be a hot bed of drama and in-fighting otherwise no one would come back. But, at the same time the self righteous on here cry that the drama is what scares away the new users!! Give me a break.

You want to debate and discuss the hell out of every case on A/M then so be it. I'm not even getting warmed up here yet.--– Nubis NWO 19:00, 6 September 2009 (BST)

I'm seriously not even reading this. From the very first sentence I can tell that you're not even paying attention to what's been said. Because everything I have said refutes your hyperbolic allegations.
It's come down to: you see my name, you oppose whatever it is I wrote. It's become that simple, thar knee jerk with you, Nubis: Wan proposed a change, and it's obviously unnecessary crap meant to strangle the sysops. It's not even worth wasting the time to argue with you, because you obviously don't even read my words nevermind understand them and respond to them appropriately.
And guess what? Now you can use this reply as fodder for how uncooperative and bullheaded I allegedly am. Brilliant! And utterly predictable. Well... whatever. --WanYao 01:20, 7 September 2009 (BST)
Wow... I actually read parts of that. It'd be hard to get much more off topic, more hysterical, more tinfoil-hat-wearing than that rant. This policy has nothing to do with definitions of pornography, with strangling you as a sysop, or with any of your other apparent obsessions. You seem to be opposed to this policy for two reasons: a) I wrote it and b) it's simple and it makes sense. --WanYao 07:12, 8 September 2009 (BST)
Well, you can understand how he could be confused or feel hostile, this policy was (I assume) launched after he gave himself a punishment the other day. So, it's natural for him to be annoyed. What he did is also perfectly legal under what the rules currently are. Obviously, or there'd be no need to create this policy. But that means that he was fine to do it, and this, accompanied by the second misconduct case he was given, makes him look and feel like he was in the wrong, which he technically wasn't. At the same time, this is a fairly important issue, as a sysop punishing himself could cause unnecessary levels of drama to exude from a single case. (Like that doesn't happen frequently enough). The major point here is that it eliminates the conversation from continuing, which may be a good thing, but it also stops other parties from stating their opinions, ones which might not have been considered. So, this does need a look-through, whether you feel it's deflammatory or not, Nubis.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:34, 8 September 2009 (BST)

before this goes any further... i just realised how this does negate the ability to call "no contest". i hope to discuss that problem when i come home this evening, but right now i am about to leave. however, a point to ponder is whether, maybe, if certain people didn't launch into wall-of-text tirades accusing me of every means under the sun to lynch them... then maybe certain other people would actually be a little more receptive to recognising valid critiques. this is for policy discussion after all. not policy shock and awe. that's all for now. --WanYao 12:53, 8 September 2009 (BST)

You take criticism on the policies you write too personally because you make the policies too personal. This policy does nothing but attack me and doesn't help Misconduct at all. --– Nubis NWO 15:17, 8 September 2009 (BST)
Actually, it prevents misconducting sysops from silencing discussion on A/M by meting out their own punishment. Not a huge problem, but one that certainly exists. And yeah totally man, it's only about you, as opposed to you just being the catalyst. --Bob Boberton TF / DW Littlemudkipsig.gif 15:22, 8 September 2009 (BST)
Nubis, it isn't so much about attacking you, it's moreso that it was made apparant by you doing it. Since WanYao thinks that sysops shouldn't be able to do it, he's creating a policy for the purpose of preventing future use.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 15:37, 8 September 2009 (BST)
You'te fucking nuts, nubis. Saying I take it all personally??! This policy was in NO WAY an attack on you. There was nothing personal or hostile towards you ni this policy. It's not me who takes it all too personally. It's you. for fuck sake. You're the one who read some personal attack into the policy -- where no such thing existed ... and went on an hysterical tirade against me and against the policy.... over shit you fucking made up in your own head. Drop the fucking persecution complex, nubis. Seriously.
I'm tipsy and I'm not censoring myself. I like it. --WanYao 08:02, 9 September 2009 (BST)


I don't think there is anything wrong with silencing the "discussion" by "pleading guilty". As long as you can't choose the punishment. As long as that priority stays I won't mind voting for this. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:40, 8 September 2009 (BST)

I have one thing to say, and that is

The "stifling discussion" and "prematurely ending a case" arguments are horrible, horrible arguments because there is literally nothing stopping the other sysops from pressing on with the case and imposing whatever punishments they see fit on top of the self-inflicted stuff (or not, if they would have chosen a weaker punishment or whatever) if they want to. That is all. Cyberbob  Talk  15:44, 8 September 2009 (BST)

Concur. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 16:13, 8 September 2009 (BST)
The bigger issue is that they're being let get away with it. This is an irrelevant policy but, only because the other sysops should already be punishing this behavior as the intent is almost always to fast track a case knowing that certain sysops will always accept it as a closed matter and will try to have it treated as such after this happens regardless of the appropriateness of the punishment so long as it includes a few hours of banned. --Karekmaps?! 19:07, 8 September 2009 (BST)
If "certain sysops" will always accept it as closed then why the hell isn't there a policy saying a case must be determined closed before discussion can end on it? Sounds like the problem isn't with the person that is accepting a punishment, but maybe with those that want to be "let out of doing" their job (deciding a punishment). --– Nubis NWO 00:13, 9 September 2009 (BST)
Oh imagine if someone'd proposed THAT policy... the screams of persecution, of how it's just there to create drama and to "strangle" of the sysops... and of course if I wrote it, it'd be a PERSONAL ATTACK on nubis:::anyway...
Anyway, karek said it better than I ever could: "the other sysops should already be punishing this behavior as the intent is almost always to fast track a case knowing that certain sysops will always accept it as a closed matter" --WanYao 16:21, 9 September 2009 (BST)
Yes, it is. It's also a problem with the sysops who intentionally abuse that. Basically, in that situation, you're all fuck ups if you don't make an issue of it. It's a problem of people not doing their job and people intentionally playing a rigged system, both are misconduct when performed by a sysop and always have been. --Karekmaps?! 21:35, 9 September 2009 (BST)

New draft

Much simpler. Italicised red text to be appended to the current policy.

"All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team other than the sysop named in the case will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive."
--WanYao 16:52, 9 September 2009 (BST)

Back to actual policy discussion, now....
Ok... Now someone please tell me if I am hallucinating the following hypothetical turn of events... This policy gets passed. There is a Misconduct case going on and in the course of that case the person being accused of Misconduct "pleads guilty". At that point -- unless it's deemed, for whatever reason, that the case should not be closed -- the case will be considered closed. At that point, the sysops decide upon an appropriate penalty, if any. This is how it works/will work, right? If so, there is no issue about "dragging out cases forever" etc. etc. It'd pretty much be "same as it always is", except the Misconductee can't apply his own punishment. Is this correct? --WanYao 17:04, 9 September 2009 (BST)

your policy is silly and make baby zombie jesus cry. Having a sysop issue their own punishment used to be a good practice in this wiki, one which was highly encouraged. If the other sysops have something else to say, they are free to do so even after the reported sysop admitted guilt and punished himself in any way. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 21:46, 9 September 2009 (BST)
It was never highly encouraged. Now having a sysop admit they screwed up, that's different but, you know as well as anyone that's not the case. --Karekmaps?! 23:09, 9 September 2009 (BST)
I don't want to debate ancient history. No one is sacrificing virgins or cramming half-naked warriors into wooden horses, so meh. Anyway... Anyone have anything constructive to say about the policy? Karek obviously thinks it's pointless, and I understand why... Even if your version of history is correct, karek, it's history. No one is doing what you say they're supposed to be doing. In any event, sysops shouldn't be implementing their own penalties in Misconduct cases -- and whether we prefer Herotodus or Thucydides, I don't think that matters re: this policy. Comments? --WanYao 04:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)
Well, WanYao, I feel that this policies really quite pointless. What Nubis did was to give himself a penalty far above what he would've been given in any other circumstance. If he, or any other sysop, had given themself a ban which wasn't adequate, any other sysop could step in and say so. And there will always be sysops on the team, such as Bob, who will speak up if they feel it isn't enough of a punishment. So really, the final line isn't with the one who issues their own ban, it's with the other sysops, and if they'll accept it.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:09, 10 September 2009 (BST)
I like the policy. Making it clear that a sysop may not apply (or choose) their own punishment forces the others to make potentially tough decisions instead of abrogating responsibility. It also prevents potential abuse through conveniently timed bans and does absolutely nothing to prevent a sysop admitting their mistakes. --Honestmistake 08:10, 10 September 2009 (BST)
As said, any other sysop can over-rule their self-punishment and add whatever they want. Please elaborate more on the conveniently timed bans, I don't quite understand.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 17:24, 10 September 2009 (BST)
I am not saying it has ever happened but.... Sysop A bans User X for a few hours and it is later found by others to be an bad judgment. The ban is overturned and misconduct is filed... rather than see the whole case through Sysop A just holds his hands up and self bans just before he/she goes to bed. 8 hours of sleep later and the ban is served. Now obviously that would not apply to 24 hour bans (unless the sysop is hibernating or something) but it is currently a very easy way for a sysop to bury a case if they so wish. --Honestmistake 17:30, 10 September 2009 (BST)
Fair enough. I get it, but still, any other sysop can add more time to the sentence.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 21:19, 10 September 2009 (BST)
"As said, any other sysop can over-rule their self-punishment and add whatever they want"... Why not just streamline the system and disallow sysops from implementing their own Misconduct bans? And seriously... doesn't it strike you as weird that a sysop can choose and implement their own penalty when brought up on charges of abusingf sysop powers? Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent and a potential conflict of interest position?
As I have explained, this policy does not stop a sysop from "pleading guilty" or "no contest"... If this were to happen, the case is considered closed and a penalty is decided upon. The only change is that the Misconductee doesn't get to pick a penalty and can't implement it themselves. However, there's nothing stopping a sysop from saying, "Fine. I fucked up. Ban me for 24 hours". And then the very next sysop to come along would say, "Ok, fair enough. Done. (Sysop A) banned for 24 hours". --WanYao 05:49, 11 September 2009 (BST)
There is also nothing stopping a third sysop from coming along and saying, "Whoooooah boy! I don't agree with that penalty" -- exactly like the status quo. --WanYao 05:53, 11 September 2009 (BST)
Well, fair enough, but I still don't see much extra point to this policy. Just a way to do the same thing as we're currently doing with a policy added on.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 07:32, 11 September 2009 (BST)
The policy stops sysops from banning themselves. That is a change. And that was its intent from day one. I've explained why I believe this is a good idea, more than once. Maybe you don't think this is a necessary change, or maybe you think it's too minor to be important. And, yes, it's a small change. But it's not a "merely cosmetic" change, as you seem to think. --WanYao 22:42, 11 September 2009 (BST)
Cute, this is why you shouldn't write policies. --Karekmaps?! 20:11, 11 September 2009 (BST)
Ok, I guess we should just leave everything to the All-knowing Godlike Experts... like you? Feth that. --WanYao 22:42, 11 September 2009 (BST)
No but you could try to be less of a witless bitch in trying to make your lack of point. This behavior is ridiculous, good, we agree, now learn to shut the fuck up because everything else you've said is pure concentrated stupid. --Karekmaps?! 12:50, 17 September 2009 (BST)

Thoughts

This is fine. It does not proscribe minimum punishments, nor does it restrict the ability of a sysop to admit wrongdoing, it simply prevents abuse of the procedure. Send this to voting any time. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:02, 12 September 2009 (BST)

I agree. There's no real need for extended discussion on this. Som people disagree with it, some agree with it. But it isn't a matter of semantics, it's just the general concept. So really, send it up, and see how it goes.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:16, 12 September 2009 (BST)
Yes, I think everything that needs to be said has been said... Now, I just have to figure out how to put it up as an official policy. --WanYao 19:19, 12 September 2009 (BST)
Add voting section, make news post on front page template. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:21, 12 September 2009 (BST)
It stays in the Administration/Policy Discussion directory? --WanYao 19:24, 12 September 2009 (BST)
Apparently so, the original is still in aforementioned directory: UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Blinking_Text_Is_Annoying. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:30, 12 September 2009 (BST)


Obvious

You know, the only reason Nubis ever banned Nubis was so that no one else would check the IP. This cracks me up that this pointless policy is passing! I bet it will never be used. Great contribution! --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 15:46, 15 September 2009 (BST)

Probably not, since he's been rid of anyway. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:51, 15 September 2009 (BST)

When does this close?

Voting started over 2 weeks ago... any sign of this being closed?--Honestmistake 11:57, 30 September 2009 (BST)

Personal tools
advertisements