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

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

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)

   --User:Sexualharrison15:11, 30 May 2011 (bst)

2. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 15:12, 30 May 2011 (BST)

   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. ~ _{15:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)} I've changed my mind. Policy is not good as written. ~ _{17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)}

3. Sounds reasonable.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:23, 30 May 2011 (BST)
4. 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)

   Discussion moved to talk page. -- Spiderzed█ 17:18, 31 May 2011 (BST)

5. --Moodie  ^{Talk  Contributions} 04:09, 2 June 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)

   the only logical solution to this issue is to physically move banned people to leper colonies. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 19:59, 31 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. --Karek^{maps 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. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:25, 30 May 2011 (BST)
5. Against, policy is too vague and overreaching. "Sys-Ops may temporarily tolerate other off-site requests" In particular. Also does not take into account how a user would contact said sysops. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 08:00, 31 May 2011 (BST)
6. Against. Off-site requests should not be accepted unless by a banned user. That's the only way to end this god-awful dispute. ~ _{17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)}
7. thought about it a bit more--User:Sexualharrison17:58, 31 May 2011 (bst)
8. As Karloth and Vapor --Fjorn 07:20, 1 June 2011 (BST)
9. I dislike the vagueness of the policy, but I cannot put a finger on specifically why. --sannok^{(talk)(kilts)} 07:53, 1 June 2011 (BST)
10. Thats a big ten-no Den mother. Bad idea, just stay with the current "Person asked me to do it, I'm doin' it, less discuss on talk pages laters" bit.--That filthy fucking red link 20:08, 1 June 2011 (BST)
11. It's no secret I'm in favour of off-site requests being granted, but this is poorly worded and would just provide a minefield for future drama if previous requests are any benchmark to use. 04:40, 2 June 2011 (BST)