UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Off-Site Requests for Admin Actions: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎For: but they can come to the wiki is a retarded argument.)
Line 23: Line 23:
#::The default of A/M is to uphold the action in question (e.g. tied votes are treated as Not Misconduct), but we ''need'' for the default to be to support the overturn, else it puts the responsibility on the wrong party. Also, A/M should always be treated as an exception, and not part of the normal process for handling disputes that are likely to arise. Towards that end, this policy provides non-A/M mechanics for how an overturn can itself be overturned, which is by the requestor showing up to make it official. Clear, simple, and without room for drama and interpretation. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:21, 30 May 2011 (BST)
#::The default of A/M is to uphold the action in question (e.g. tied votes are treated as Not Misconduct), but we ''need'' for the default to be to support the overturn, else it puts the responsibility on the wrong party. Also, A/M should always be treated as an exception, and not part of the normal process for handling disputes that are likely to arise. Towards that end, this policy provides non-A/M mechanics for how an overturn can itself be overturned, which is by the requestor showing up to make it official. Clear, simple, and without room for drama and interpretation. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 21:21, 30 May 2011 (BST)
#:::The only ''valid'' reason is reasonable suspision the request is fake. That's exactly the kind of thing A/M should be used for.  --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:39, 30 May 2011 (BST)
#:::The only ''valid'' reason is reasonable suspision the request is fake. That's exactly the kind of thing A/M should be used for.  --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:39, 30 May 2011 (BST)
#::::"''The only ''valid'' reason is reasonable suspicion the request is fake.''" - Says who? I know [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Krazy_Monkey/2011#14_May|you think]] that an action must be Misconduct to be overturned (at least with regards to A/U), but we're talking about this policy here and it doesn't say that. Overturning an action does not necessitate that the action be considered Misconduct (else we'd have to rule Misconduct before we could undo any administrative mistake), nor are fake requests the only valid reason to overturn a ruling (and even if they were, what if it wasn't the sysop's fault, such as if one user impersonated another off-site?). Plus, in cases where the sysop is at fault, the status quo shouldn't be upset for however many days it takes for the A/M ruling to be reached. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 05:30, 31 May 2011 (BST)


===Against===
===Against===

Revision as of 04:30, 31 May 2011

In general, off-site requests relayed to administrative pages don't need to be carried out, with a few exceptions:

  1. Actions requested on behalf of a banned user (especially for, but not necessarily limited to Permaban appeals).
  2. Actions that would have been considered to be scheduled anyway (particularly, but not limited to Scheduled Deletions and Scheduled Protections).

Sys-Ops may temporarily tolerate other off-site requests. As such a request is merely tolerated, a sys-op may anytime ask for another sys-op to overturn it, unless the user himself shows up on-site to confirm it.

The following actions are absolutely never eligible for off-site requests, but must always be asked for on-site:

  1. Votes
  2. Self-requested bans
  3. Self-requested demotions

Voting Section

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.

For

  1. -- Spiderzed█ 15:10, 30 May 2011 (BST)
  2. --User:Sexualharrison15:11, 30 May 2011 (bst)
  3. --Michalesonbadge.pngTCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:12, 30 May 2011 (BST)
  4. I still don't really like the part about temporarily tolerating other off-site requests but I don't suppose it can be too badly abused. It's probably just me and its no reason to shoot it down. Overall the policy is good and definitely one that is needed. ~Vsig.png 15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  5. Sounds reasonable.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:23, 30 May 2011 (BST)
  6. The part about being able to overturn the request is absolutely necessary, since we would otherwise be giving these off-site requests the same weight as on-site requests, but without the requirement that any sort of paper trail be provided. —Aichon— 16:52, 30 May 2011 (BST)
    That's not exactly true. In cases where it is questionable we can require proof through A/M.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 17:43, 30 May 2011 (BST)
    The default of A/M is to uphold the action in question (e.g. tied votes are treated as Not Misconduct), but we need for the default to be to support the overturn, else it puts the responsibility on the wrong party. Also, A/M should always be treated as an exception, and not part of the normal process for handling disputes that are likely to arise. Towards that end, this policy provides non-A/M mechanics for how an overturn can itself be overturned, which is by the requestor showing up to make it official. Clear, simple, and without room for drama and interpretation. —Aichon— 21:21, 30 May 2011 (BST)
    The only valid reason is reasonable suspision the request is fake. That's exactly the kind of thing A/M should be used for. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:39, 30 May 2011 (BST)
    "The only valid reason is reasonable suspicion the request is fake." - Says who? I know you think that an action must be Misconduct to be overturned (at least with regards to A/U), but we're talking about this policy here and it doesn't say that. Overturning an action does not necessitate that the action be considered Misconduct (else we'd have to rule Misconduct before we could undo any administrative mistake), nor are fake requests the only valid reason to overturn a ruling (and even if they were, what if it wasn't the sysop's fault, such as if one user impersonated another off-site?). Plus, in cases where the sysop is at fault, the status quo shouldn't be upset for however many days it takes for the A/M ruling to be reached. —Aichon— 05:30, 31 May 2011 (BST)

Against

  1. -If it's even remotely worthwhile, it's worth taking the 10 seconds to log in and sign. If it isn't, then don't bother requesting it. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:24, 30 May 2011 (BST)
    how about if they are banned?--User:Sexualharrison15:34, 30 May 2011 (bst)
  2. Why would anyone vote for this? It had potential right up until the author intentionally made it so on a whim any sysop can step in and undo the request. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 16:23, 30 May 2011 (BST)
  3. Sounds flaky to me. --Akbar 16:27, 30 May 2011 (BST)
  4. Much like the rest of the wiki this seems silly and pointless. --You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:25, 30 May 2011 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Off-Site_Requests_for_Admin_Actions&oldid=1896783"