UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibit Sysop Fraud
Hahaha.
I love all the little clauses and phrases you've thrown in there to basically automatically have Boxy convicted for (legally) editing your entry. Sorry mang but messing with A/VD is already Misconduct; you just want to "get" Boxy. Cyberbob Talk 01:19, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- What are you talking about, Cyberbob. This policy is clearly GOLD.-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:22, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- This policy will be retroactively applicable. Yep, that sums it all up.--Orange Talk 02:12, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- You missed "No vote will be needed, just the proof (such as edit histories, contribution records etc.) being presented in a misconduct case will be sufficient to prove guilt of this offence." and all of the second-last paragraph. Cyberbob Talk 02:31, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- Oh, and the third dot point. Cyberbob Talk 02:43, 1 October 2009 (BST)
Oh dear. Of the three points, the bottom two are unreasonable. Sysops should have any right to rightly strike their own vandal escalations if the striking is legitimate. And for god's sake, that last point, "# alter the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will" can imply that we can't add escalations under any legitimate circumstance, lest strike them, if the "victim" doesn't agree with it, and you're trying to embed that into policy? The wiki lawyers will have a fucking field day. They'd have to be one smartarse of a wikilawyer to try it, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:24, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- Oh look, it's already been brought up. Don't mind me then. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:41, 1 October 2009 (BST)
I tried so hard, so hard, to find something witty to say. But honestly, this "policy" is sad. I mean SAD. I'm going to go cry and cut myself...--SirArgo Talk 06:48, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- I also tried to think of something witty. Alas, I will go drink instead because that is far more productive than finding good things to say about this policy. --Maverick Talk - OBR
404 07:39, 1 October 2009 (BST)
This is amazing. So I alter a vandal data entry, and get taken to vandal banning, misconduct AND the serious fraud section. Truly amazing. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 08:49, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- But wait! I can't be given a vandalism warning because that would be altering the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will! --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:57, 1 October 2009 (BST)
A penny for my thoughts
This is bullshit. It's completely unreasonable and serves nobody but yourself. The only person who've we've had any major qualms about VD is you and it usually stems from your bizarre self righteous crusade for the benefit for the community. To be blunt, this place was much, much quieter without you and I'd hoped that your break would get you to calm down and actually contribute again rather than going off on one due to some perceived injustice. Please fuck off again, and leave us all in peace. -- Cheese 10:55, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- Now, now, Cheese, don't you remember those two days where he was moderately less of a troll? No? Maybe it was an hour then.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 11:08, 1 October 2009 (BST)
Vandalism
This is not a Policy its a clearly bad faith edit that probably deserves punishing as Vandalism. --Honestmistake 12:10, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- The sad thing is that it isn't. Iscariot actually wants this to become policy, and, although his motives are sinister, we can't discriminate against his opinion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:14, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- He may well want the policy but only so he can use it to cause trouble. Look at the wording, ever single nuance is there to let him cause drama and there is no way it could be read in any way that make it seem like he has any valid points. The whole thing is 100% solid shit crafted for his own petty reasons. You say it yourself "his motives are sinister" and thats pretty much what makes this bad faith and thus almost certainly vandalism... as for not discriminating against his opinion, well we can and we do. People have been A/VB'd for a lot less in the past. --Honestmistake 13:05, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- That's mens rea, but no Actus Reus. He is perfectly entitled to create a policy discussion against the will of the public, which is why there's a discussion. If we limit who can make policy discussions, we may as well just ditch the whole system.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 13:13, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- He may well want the policy but only so he can use it to cause trouble. Look at the wording, ever single nuance is there to let him cause drama and there is no way it could be read in any way that make it seem like he has any valid points. The whole thing is 100% solid shit crafted for his own petty reasons. You say it yourself "his motives are sinister" and thats pretty much what makes this bad faith and thus almost certainly vandalism... as for not discriminating against his opinion, well we can and we do. People have been A/VB'd for a lot less in the past. --Honestmistake 13:05, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- This policy is more fixable than Jorm's one that was ruled not vandalism. Meh -- boxy talk • teh rulz 13:27 1 October 2009 (BST)
Good one
"Sysops that... alter the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will... will be guilty of Fraudulent Misconduct."
- That's gold! No more escalations for anyone, because I'm pretty sure that 90% of vandal escalations would be "contrary to that user's will" >:)
Seriously though, you don't "own" your vandal data, it is information to help sysops keep track of vandal escalations. If anyone "owns" it, it is the admin of the wiki -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:49 1 October 2009 (BST)
Shhhh!!!!!!!!!
be quiet i have one less warning than i should--Imthatguy is on the wiki looking at ur pagez 13:50, 1 October 2009 (BST)
