UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Moderationnav

Guidelines for De-Escalation Requests

All De-Escalation Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

  • A link to the user in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.
  • A criteria for de-escalation. This should be short and to the point, including relevant links A/VD and A/VB if available.
  • A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding ~~~~ to the end of your request.

Any deletion request that does not contain these pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator.

De-Escalation Eligibility

To be eligible for a De-Escaltion Request, the user must fall under one of the following criteria:

  1. 1 Month and 250 Edits: At least 1 month has passed since the user's last vandalism infraction, and they have made 250 good-faith edits to the wiki in that time.
  2. Invalid Vandalism Ruling: The vandalism data on the user's record is incorrect, because the specific vandalism ruling in question has been subsequently reversed.

Cycle of Warnings and Bans

The cycle of warnings and bans is laid out in these guidelines. De-Escalations will be administered starting with the 2nd warning, then working backwards through bans, and finally ending with the first warning, provided there are no acts of vandalism committed by the user in the interim period.

De-Escalation Queue

User:Drawde

Rightio, since noones made use of this yet, I'll deflower this virgin Admin page. I'm more then ready to de-escalated, having made a crap load of shitty awesome edits to this wiki, and over a month has passed.

-- Adward  22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're still about ten or fifteen edits off of the magic number. Go un-merge some grouped locations or categorise some stuff that's not categorised and come back in like an hour. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DO I FIT IN WITH YOUR HARSH RULES NOW?!?!?!?! (I actually love you all.)-- Adward  23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Now say thank you. When I fall, I'll weep for happiness 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Die in a fire.Спасибо.-- Adward  13:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

What happens if you were up for a de-escalation, did not get one, instead getting another escalation. Can you still get the de-escalation afterwards? --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 11:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the request is now sufficient enough to establish that you deserved a striking beforehand. After all, we check to strike escalations before adding one anyway. -- 11:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you did a damn fine job then. Although I should have brought it up myself. Well anyway look here. My first warning and followed 24hour ban should have been swiped, because I made 500+ edits in a period of two months, starting from July. My next two escalations started all the way forth at November, and would have been allot less harsh in punishment if I were de-escalated properly. Regardless, I was up for 2 de-escalations that I never received. So what happens now? --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 12:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah I see. What I meant (and worded poorly) was we strike them when a user is facing a higher punishment like a ban, etc. When it comes to situations like yours, we don't check on instinct but rather on request, and I'm sorry but it by our own guidelines, you've missed out. Although I still stand by what I said above about a request on this page; once its lodged it deserves to be fulfilled even if an escalation/ban happens before its served. -- 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Meh, guidelines don't say anything about missing out, at least not what I can read. Stupid system. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It says we can only strike warnings/bans one month from last infraction and if +250 edits have been made, and it also excuses us from missing strikings in situations like yours, so if you miss out, you miss out. Sorry -- 12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
yeah they're cunts. You have to get struck (have an op actually do it, not just request) before you commit something that is deemed vandalism, i tested this in july last year i think... xoxo 04:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So you're saying that the system is gay because before you deliberately perform vandalism, you have to make sure we've struck your warnings? Yeah, what a shitty system... -- 05:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm just brimming with sympathy for the trials and tribulations you choose to put yourself through by deliberately abusing the system. Cyberbob  Talk  05:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Someones gotta show how flawed it is, and hey, maybe my trials and tribulations led indirectly to the holes being repaired? I deserve a fucking medal. xoxo 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
You could get a medal if you actually tried to help fix the system but instead you abuse it for the 'lulz' and nothing more. -- 06:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The holes aren't repaired, de-escalations are still possible which allows people like you to literally vandalise forever as long as you're careful. Cyberbob  Talk  06:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Pfft you've lost perspective on what vandalism is, if you ever had any. xoxo 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)