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

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)

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)

Pfft you've lost perspective on what vandalism is, if you ever had any. xoxo 07:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

keep on moving those goalposts broheim Cyberbob  Talk  09:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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)