UDWiki talk:Administration/De-Escalations
I've made the page, if anyone has any issues with the way it turned out (I just more-or-less copied it from Giles' example he cited in the policy that created A/DE) then feel free to add/subtract/fix the info necessary or ask me to do it for you. --
11:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I like koolade. Which is a generic brand.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
archival #2
alright, an archive of A/DE is almost completed, and yet there are only 3 tended-to requests to put on there. I think that means tomorrow, instead of archiving, I'll be (again) converting the archives. This time, to yearly. For clarities' sake, I will again be changing all A/VD links to the new archives for the sake of retroactive linkage etc.
Unless any actually opposition arises, I'll just be doing this proactively sometime tomorrow. I'm under the assumption no one will disagree, though. Of course, if anyone has a reason to, speak up, but otherwise, I think this is more or less the more logical thing to do. --
12:55, 31 March 2010 (BST)
- Aye, yearly seems fine at this rate.
14:13, 31 March 2010 (BST)
archival
As per a discussion had here, what do people think about having quarter-yearly archive pages for A/DE? I'm set to prepare for that. --
12:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. Jan-March, April-June, July-September, October-December? 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. These won't be common so monthly archives will be a waste of space and time. -- 22:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- I whupped up a little archive nav bar template that can be used with
{{DEarchivenav}}should anyone desire to use it. I only did the year of 2010, and I haven't clicked on the links to create archive pages, since you're discussing quarterly cycling. It would be easy enough to add more years in the future, should this system still be existence. Of course, planning past 2012 would be futile.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)- Good, but before we start using it I'm going to change it to quarterly. Else, one entry per month =D -- 23:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I whupped up a little archive nav bar template that can be used with
- Absolutely. These won't be common so monthly archives will be a waste of space and time. -- 22:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
done
Alright, started the archival system before it actually becomes a bitch to change the links. Fixed Adward and Thad's links to DE request on A/VD. --
14:23, 20 February 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? --
Thadeous Oakley 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? --
Thadeous Oakley 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. --Thadeous Oakley 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)
- 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)
- Meh, guidelines don't say anything about missing out, at least not what I can read. Stupid system. --
- 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)
- 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? --
Sorry if I'm shitting up the admin pages, but shouldn't this "question" topic be in the discussion area?--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 11:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- It started out as a simple question/request from myself. Can't help it if others turn it in a general discussion. --Thadeous Oakley 19:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even so- he's right, although I don't really blame you for sticking it here- it was an empty page after all. -- 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for the unbannification. Is this the proper place to discuss how to go about de-juicing my ban record? In other words, removing the after-the-fact edits to my record that changed timespans and made warnings into bans. If this isn't the place, let me know where to drop my drama bombs take the appropriate action. Thanks again! -- Amazing?! 03:49, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Generally is here, yes. Also, if you take some time to drop off notes about it on my userpage I'll see about looking into what's what. Not all of it is still available in page logs but enough is that it can be followed up on externally. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:49, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- You're going to have a very hard time doing that. We've had simiar issues with Iscariot's A/VD and it was decided I think not to completely re-do A/VD's that were corrupted. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 05:39, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- I can live with that. As I no longer play the game, I of course have little reason to edit anything but my own pages. I suppose if I step on a landmine and get re-permabanned it won't be the end of the world. It does strike me as a pity, though, that someone can - on his own - simply change the history and it can't be redone. Not a big deal, though. Kerek, I still may post the info as you stated, but of course I don't recall the majority of the details at this point. Essentually my major arguement was going to be that pre-escalation-system warnings and bans under different or, at the time, nonexistant rules kind of shouldn't be fair game to retroactively count against you. -- Amazing?! 05:45, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Unfortunately we've always accepted those as part of vandal history so it'd be a special case exception if it were changed now. I'd always be more than glad to see that discussion though, I'll gladly look over them case by case and discuss the options available. As for Iscariot's vandal data, I may be missing something but when I read his summary and went over the case histories he actually seemed to get more wrong than he did right if I remember correctly but that's a matter for another time. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:51, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Yeah, it'd be worth looking over at least- no two tales of corrupted or forged A/VD datas are the same. But don't get your hopes up. And as it stands, it isn't too hard to get deescalated so a permaban isn't a worry (though unless you're a real shithead or a nazi you seriously won't get perma'd ever again since it's now up to a sysop vote whether one is permabanned now). -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:01, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- I thought there was special cased permas for Deescalated perma users. Was that taken out in post? --Karekmaps 2.0?! 06:32, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- I don't know. It might have been something you suggested but I overlooked? Not sure. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:36, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Ah wait I completely misunderstood you. Nah, I think my intention was always to just get the permaban struck and give them the clean slate from there, so they would always have to go through the vote again. That's at least what I intended, and no wording suggests otherwise I hope :| -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:40, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- I don't know. It might have been something you suggested but I overlooked? Not sure. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 12:36, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Spent some time digging around, got nothing but crosseyedness. Nothing interesting, anyway. I'll dig around some more some time, but wouldn't put any sort of time estimate on it. :) I know, I've broken hearts here tonight. -- Amazing?! 07:24, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- I thought there was special cased permas for Deescalated perma users. Was that taken out in post? --Karekmaps 2.0?! 06:32, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Yeah, it'd be worth looking over at least- no two tales of corrupted or forged A/VD datas are the same. But don't get your hopes up. And as it stands, it isn't too hard to get deescalated so a permaban isn't a worry (though unless you're a real shithead or a nazi you seriously won't get perma'd ever again since it's now up to a sysop vote whether one is permabanned now). -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 06:01, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- Unfortunately we've always accepted those as part of vandal history so it'd be a special case exception if it were changed now. I'd always be more than glad to see that discussion though, I'll gladly look over them case by case and discuss the options available. As for Iscariot's vandal data, I may be missing something but when I read his summary and went over the case histories he actually seemed to get more wrong than he did right if I remember correctly but that's a matter for another time. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 05:51, 23 April 2011 (BST)
- I can live with that. As I no longer play the game, I of course have little reason to edit anything but my own pages. I suppose if I step on a landmine and get re-permabanned it won't be the end of the world. It does strike me as a pity, though, that someone can - on his own - simply change the history and it can't be redone. Not a big deal, though. Kerek, I still may post the info as you stated, but of course I don't recall the majority of the details at this point. Essentually my major arguement was going to be that pre-escalation-system warnings and bans under different or, at the time, nonexistant rules kind of shouldn't be fair game to retroactively count against you. -- Amazing?! 05:45, 23 April 2011 (BST)
Unban zoomi!
Do it! I will lol!--That filthy fucking red link 10:48, 27 April 2011 (BST)
- I was going to, but then I reviewed the reasons she was banned… ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:04, 27 April 2011 (BST)
- Please don't. I was kidding.--That filthy fucking red link 01:16, 28 April 2011 (BST)
- Oh dear god NO ahah -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:50, 28 April 2011 (BST)
- Please don't. I was kidding.--That filthy fucking red link 01:16, 28 April 2011 (BST)
Another Question
"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 since the last infraction/striking a user has received." So striking refers to a de-escalation, correct? -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 08:55, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Yep. You can only get deescalated once a month. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 09:19, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- And 250 additional edits since previous reduction, I gather. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 09:38, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Indeed, it was genuinly agreed that someone shouldnt get completely deescalated for doing a million edits in a single day. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 09:45, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Fair enough; took me 11 months to make this 250 anyway. 14:25, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- Fair enough; took me 11 months to make this 250 anyway.
- Indeed, it was genuinly agreed that someone shouldnt get completely deescalated for doing a million edits in a single day. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 09:45, 15 September 2012 (BST)
- And 250 additional edits since previous reduction, I gather. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 09:38, 15 September 2012 (BST)
Another question, but not worth another header. I wonder, would it be at all possible to consider any Ban that has no cited reason "invalid"? It's an interesting thought at least, no? Basically back in the day I was warned or banned for some pretty insane shit that was in no way written in 'rule' format. Just "I don't like that. Warning." type of stuff. Not going to cry blood if it's not a reason to invalidate, but just curio. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 04:32, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- So was everyone that was around in 2005, we didn't have formalized rules back then. We have a place for reviewing perma-bans, beyond that it's not something we really have the means or desire to wade into as not all of the information is still there or available. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:44, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- Additionally, I know that some of the policies that changed or added rules have explicit clauses saying that they would not apply retroactively, which made very clear the fact that old bans were to remain valid. —Aichon— 05:25, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- Indeed, the very selective rules of "retroactive" behavior! XD Ha! -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 17:40, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- Sounds about right. Honestly I don't know what harm it does to err on the side of making right the problems of the past, but I can respect not wanting to 'get into' a can of worms, etc. Were it me (and it's obviously not) I'd just strike all recorded info with no reason recorded to back it up. It's relatively simple to just apply one arbitrary rule like that - but again I should stress this is just musing and I'm fine with nothing happening. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 17:12, 16 September 2012 (BST)
- Additionally, I know that some of the policies that changed or added rules have explicit clauses saying that they would not apply retroactively, which made very clear the fact that old bans were to remain valid. —Aichon— 05:25, 16 September 2012 (BST)
