UDWiki talk:Misconduct: Difference between revisions
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
This could leave it a bit to open for a sysop to claim "harassment" on a user and punish them with A/VB escalations. As long as I can remember it has been a firm principle of the misconduct procedure that punishment (even for bringing frivilous cases) was never to be given to the accuser as it may discourage folk from bringing real cases. Yes there are many examples of recen cases that go beyond frivilous and should be regarded as vandalism/trolling but Misconduct is the only real way the community at large has to call out the sysops and anything that alters the balance deserves more consideration and community input than what we have here. As for the actual list of "not misconducts", I really do not think it is particularly useful.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | This could leave it a bit to open for a sysop to claim "harassment" on a user and punish them with A/VB escalations. As long as I can remember it has been a firm principle of the misconduct procedure that punishment (even for bringing frivilous cases) was never to be given to the accuser as it may discourage folk from bringing real cases. Yes there are many examples of recen cases that go beyond frivilous and should be regarded as vandalism/trolling but Misconduct is the only real way the community at large has to call out the sysops and anything that alters the balance deserves more consideration and community input than what we have here. As for the actual list of "not misconducts", I really do not think it is particularly useful.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Do you honestly think that the sysops can not tell the difference between a user thinking they have a legitimate concern and someone that is grasping at straws? Have you ever noticed on the A/VB page when a "new" user posts a case that isn't vandalism the attending sysops explain why it isn't yet when some long time user does we say "you should have taken this to their talk page first"? Have you never ever ever seen that? Have you ever noticed that a majority of the Misconduct cases are filed by the same people? Do you really think that sysops shouldn't be given the same protections as regular users? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:15, 13 January 2009
Not sure I like these changes
Please don't make me side with Iscariot here because i know what you are aiming for and think its a good idea but...
- "Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops."
This could leave it a bit to open for a sysop to claim "harassment" on a user and punish them with A/VB escalations. As long as I can remember it has been a firm principle of the misconduct procedure that punishment (even for bringing frivilous cases) was never to be given to the accuser as it may discourage folk from bringing real cases. Yes there are many examples of recen cases that go beyond frivilous and should be regarded as vandalism/trolling but Misconduct is the only real way the community at large has to call out the sysops and anything that alters the balance deserves more consideration and community input than what we have here. As for the actual list of "not misconducts", I really do not think it is particularly useful.--Honestmistake 09:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you honestly think that the sysops can not tell the difference between a user thinking they have a legitimate concern and someone that is grasping at straws? Have you ever noticed on the A/VB page when a "new" user posts a case that isn't vandalism the attending sysops explain why it isn't yet when some long time user does we say "you should have taken this to their talk page first"? Have you never ever ever seen that? Have you ever noticed that a majority of the Misconduct cases are filed by the same people? Do you really think that sysops shouldn't be given the same protections as regular users? --– Nubis NWO 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
