|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ===Vandalism Case===
| | #redirect [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Promotions]] |
| {{pre|1=He vandalized the wiki's policy on sysop promotion- he changed it without permission from the community, or a change in policy. I thought this mjight be better than misconduct for this.
| |
| [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Promotions&curid=7625&diff=814984&oldid=814976 Policy on Promotions] He added qualifications and changed the text so as to change the policy. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 19:22, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :'''Not Vandalism''' - The guidelines were written when the wiki was very young, almost two years ago. Hagnats edit to the guidelines reflects accurately upon the intended spirit of those guidelines, plus it just makes sense. Also, even if it wasnt, it was still an edit made in good faith, and not against any policy or precident i can find that would force my hand. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 19:41, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::Okay, it's not vandalism. But he still can't change an administrative policy without a vote. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 19:42, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::He didnt. He clarified the intent of the existing guidelines to eliminate a silly loophole abusable by rules lawyers. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 19:46, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::::Then he should add that he '''probably''' rather than, '''won't''' be accepted if it's not within the last 6 months. One is a guideline, the other is an illegal policy change. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 19:47, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::::No. He was fixing the policies wording to match its intent. Now i must insist that you and hagnat stop your edit war. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 19:55, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::::::Actually, Hagnat did change the rules instead of clarify them. That "in the last six months" bit was completely new and never intentioned mainly because nobody though of the possibility of inactive users running for sysop back then. Hagnat even said it was a rule change. It might be a good one but he just shouldn't decide to add it himself. Now it's probably good faith edit and not vandalism, but thats not my call anyway as you are the sysop who took on this case, but it was not fixing the policies wording to match its intent. He introduced a new one. Now Odd starter might have had the authority to write new rules back in the day but now we have policy discussions. And as long as that hasn't happened the rules should go back to what they were.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black"> Vista </span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory "> +1 </span>]]</span></small> 22:10, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :it's only vandalism if it's done in bad faith. Since any promotion bid is due to fail it the user doesnt regulary edit the wiki, i decided to put that single line in there, so people don't put themselves for promotion unless they are really active enough. 500 in 6 months is less than 100 edits per month, which i think displays enough activity for a user to be promoted. This is a case where we dont need to go all the way through Policy discussion. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 19:39, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::You still can't change a policy without a vote. The policy never read "within six months." Create a policy to change it to that if you want to change it to that. Otherwise, you don't have the power to change it. [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 19:41, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::Yes i can, and so can you. As long as the edit in question is done with common sense in mind, no one will argue about your edit, and even if they do, it's just a matter of rolling back the edit, and then questioning the edit in the policy talk page, filling an arby (in serious cases), or then moving the edit to policy discussion, if enough people are against and for the edit in question. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 19:46, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::::Not with rules hagnat. We've got a very specific [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion|system]] for changing the rules of this wiki. What you are describing is for general editing. And you know that.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black"> Vista </span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory "> +1 </span>]]</span></small> 22:17, 8 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :::::These were rules that {{usr|Odd Starter}} wrote whitouve consulting the community in the first place, and they were already changed several other times without going through policy discussion. Why must we go all the way through the bureaucracy just to change a line of rules that is poorly written ? --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 02:27, 9 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::::::Why do we have to go through all that stupid "due process" shit to execute people? Why can't we just behead them in the streets? I mean, it's all just ''useless bureaucracy'' anyway, right? [[User:Nalikill|Nalikill]] 03:06, 9 September 2007 (BST)}}
| |
| Dear god Nalikill, compare a minor change in the rules with executing someone... what are you smoking man ? They are completly different things. Even the Spanish Inquiistion had a whole bureaucracy to burn... erm, judge if someone was a witch or not. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 06:10, 9 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===Further Discussion===
| |
| please tell me you are not going to make me go through two awful weeks of useless debate and voting just... to change... a fricking.. line!! C'mon, 500 edits in six months is more than enough to be called activity, several people get this in less than two months and any user with less than that is already voted down. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 02:18, 9 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| :I've no problem with the change, but I'm not comfortable with changing it in the middle of someone's promotion bid. It could be seen as changing the rules in order to invalidate that person. They put their bid up under the old guidelines, let the bid run it's course at least, before changing it on them <small>The preceding signed comment was added by [[User:Boxy|boxy]] ([[User talk:Boxy|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boxy|contribs]]) at 03:09 9 September 2007 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::I'm fine with the changes agreed on [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/Promotions#Hagnat.2FNalikill_Edit|here]]. Anything else, as has been said, would be overkill (translation: need policy discussion), no matter ''when'' the changes are made. --{{User:Matthewfarenheit/Signature}} 03:51, 9 September 2007 (BST)
| |
| ::There is a note in Deathnuts promotion bid warning people that there was a change in the guidelines, and that his promotion bid is valid following the old guidelines, so what's the problem in changing that line now ? --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 06:08, 9 September 2007 (BST)
| |
