UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Ignore all rules

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

Policy has been withdrawn. Please see UDWiki:Open Discussion/Ignore all rules for futher discussion.

---

Thoughts? Please see the see also, it should answer your concerns. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not wikipedia and this is for policies, making a policy to ignore the rules is just foolish.--Karek^maps?! 22:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We can make this how we like. This is discussion, and does not need to be the final draft. Did you read the see also? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's foolish. We already have something like this in existence, it's the requirement for Bad Faith in A/VB. The only other reason I can see for passing this is to allow Sysops to abuse their powers, after all the Sysops are the only ones that are restricted in such a way, and only when it comes to moves, deletes, etc. which is a good thing.--Karek^maps?! 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This will apply to all users. And since A/VB pretty much has this covered, and can see why this need not apply to it. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice any adherence to the proven bad faith aspect of A/VB here. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It was clearly not done in good faith. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed the part where anyone asked them that prior to the guilty verdict, is all. --Funt Solo ^QT 22:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

improving or maintaining Urban Dead is very ambiguous. And... what for? o_O --~~~~ [talk] 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the recent misconduct case? And yeah, it's too loose in my opinion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. God. Thats more damaging to my brain than the sneaky reduction in syringes this week. I really struggle over the "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." Challenged by anyone. It seems to be a very easy way to increase the need for arbitration/banning discussion etc.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Keyword IF. There is plenty of actions a sysop can do that doesnt need to go through due process. Actions such as maintaining a community page archive! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IF challenged. Could you imagine if one user demands justification for all the edits of another user? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a rule, silly! You can't challenge me for typing this. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but look at something like necrowatch. Could you use a blanket ignore all rules, or would you have to justify everything? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In regards to picture revision deleting? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

IN two ways. 1 picture deleting. 2. In terms of the necrotech stuff that got it taken to vandalism on the suburb pages. THeres a huge number of changes there. 100 suburbs. would you do a test example on say one suburb, see if its accepted as improving the wiki before rolling it out across malton, with the initial decision as your "permission?"--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes to 1, unless we wanted to make an exception to this rule. 2 what got taken to vandalism? Although I think A/VB is already covered by good and bad faith, and this policy would just be a repeat of existing guidelines in that department.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mobius187 vandal banning 30 december by grimch. Necrowatch stuff on all suburb pages, then removed. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it's considered good form to consult with the community before making a large change, so I suppose, yeah. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And how is Spamming the same message to advertise your group something that helps anyone but that group? It is an edit that actively makes things worse, as are most spam edits, and thus why they are considered vandalism. There is no intent rule that will change that, especially not this policy which isn't a policy but is still being proposed as a policy. And side note, suburb pages are for suburb news, not group news which was pretty much all those edits were.--Karek^maps?! 23:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How else can I propose it? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

UDWiki:Open_Discussion. --Karek^maps?! 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, one of the few UDWiki namespace that I don't have on my watchlist. But could putting this up there for discussion make if official? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not designed to be official, if that were official it would be a policy/rule that makes it impossible to enforce policies/rules. It's meant to be a general consensus thing like NPOV or Style Guides.--Karek^maps?! 03:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it would pretty much be the same. I'll leave this up, no point in wasting peoples time. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting it to a vote pretty much would be wasting peoples time. And no, it wouldn't be the same, we can't punish users through A/VB for violating a consensus policy, it's not an official wiki document, it doesn't supersede the wiki's rules. This would and as such it's reckless and completely foolish. You can not make a policy to do something like this, it's not possible practically, it's not possible at all, and if it passes enforcing it will break the wiki.--Karek^maps?! 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So it would do nothing. I'll wait and see what others think. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why it's not possible and will break the wiki? It has worked with wikipedia for the past 7 years, why not this wiki? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not Wikipedia, and on Wikipedia it's not an official policy, something made clear in the header of the page. You are trying to make it into a policy, It can't be a policy without screwing up the wiki, it's too vague and basically policies thoughts. As is that meta-rule already exists here in regards to users and all implementing it in writing can serve to do is give Sysops more power. So basically you're proposing something unneeded that might protect a Sysop who foolishly protects a page without going through the proper channels because it's a percieved helpful edit, even though the purpose of misconduct is in part to peer review something like that and in part to make sure that Sysop's don't frequently do that type of thing, something which actually hurts the running of the wiki. And some future reading since you seem to like wikipedia, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, Notice what's where there, notice that their views on what is and isn't a policy is quite different from here. Here we use A/PD for administrative policies, the rules of the wiki that allow us to determine how the Administrational areas are run, there they use it as a consensus system to how the wiki as a whole should be run, so much so that they include article Style Guides in their policies list. We don't do that, our article guidelines are done by consensus, through UDWiki:Open_Discussion generally, and are not recorded as policies. There's only one thing that both UDWiki and Wikipedia even both view to be policy worthy, and that's Conflict Resolution, and the only reason it is so here is because we have it under the Administration area as a follow over from when it was Moderation. Our policies are Rules, theirs are, essentially, Editing Standards. --Karek^maps?! 04:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

See that wasn't too hard. You have a broken link, you need two Wikipedias. Should I bother keeping this here or shift it over to open discussion?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say shift it or remove it. And in the future feel free to fix something like that, I don't mind as long as you don't emphasis the error in the fixing(like say italicizing a typo someone made, which has happened to me before).--Karek^maps?! 04:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this policy effect itself, causing an endless cycle of ignoring which could destroy the universe? Jonny12 ^talk 23:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, people were talking about this on the Wikipedia version. No, it should not. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We are sysops, not moderators. We clean up and obey the rules, we dont ignore them when they dont suit us. To be perfectly honest, this is disgusting. Someone could rationalise that a person, lets for example use myself here, is a threat to the community (HARH!) and permaban me, and be within that rule. No appeal, no due process, no misconduct. Its insanity of the highest order. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This would apply to all users. And could we not make an exception to vandal banning as it's quite covered?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, belive it or not what you just described happened over a year ago. - Jedaz [04:28, 25 January 2008 (BST)]

In the past few months there have been a A/VB case started because a user fixed a broken link, a misconduct case started because a page that was meant to be protected was protected too quickly, and a user warned for being given bad advice. These are the types of things that this policy would prevent. To protect the wiki from abuse of this policy it my be wise to consider adopting the Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and having the full text of what ignoring the rules doesn't mean on the policy page. - Vantar 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It should be emphasized that it was the user's own link and not someone else's. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the warned use? And I suppose the Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point would require another policy? I'm not quite sure how this will turn out with the voters. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC) And do you specifically mean this?

yes and here is the line you asked for( and in the interest of full disclosure I was the one who gave the bad advice). I was planning to introduce the don't prove a point one as policy independently of this one but I am rewriting so it would not need this policy to work but would also be nicely complementedby it if it passes. I have doubts that the current version will get through voting. This wiki tends to hold a much more exclusionary attitude while Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive. - Vantar 01:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that people don't take these things seriously enough. Too many "because" votes and too many people refuse to voice up on the talk page. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a cool idea for a "Only people that added two constructive comments on A/PD before the start of voting may vote on a policy" policy but then realized it would never make it out of voting with out it already being implemented - Vantar 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The misconduct case wasnt done to prove a point. I can see a whole bunch of cases, especially from less popular users such as me, being dismissed under that kind of policy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that is why I am changing the wikipedia version as it could not work here as written there. The section on civilty alone makes it useless as we have no such policy - Vantar 01:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Never. This would give abusive users such as Grim s all the justification they need to continue their reign of terror. Eg: "I banned the user for his template insulting me and the rules don't apply."

This would be pointless. If something is wrong with the rules, make a proposal to change the rules, don't just ignore them. Otherwise, the wiki will descend into anarchy and there will be dozens of new "Amazing"-type cases where users that refuse to be mindless sheep are banned for expressing their views.

TerminalFailure 9:32 PM, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Amazing was hardly banned for not being a mindless sheep. I really wish people would stop using him as an argument of abusing the system when they don't even know what went on that he got banned for.--Karek^maps?! 02:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't improve or maintain the wiki. At all. Every rule will still apply as long as it does not hinder improving or maintaing this wiki. Banning Grim s is hindering the wiki and any sysop who did that would be misconducted.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)