UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibit Sysop Fraud: Difference between revisions
Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::So that would mean every sysop who has touched A/VD would be demoted. Brilliant. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:35, 1 October 2009 (BST) | :::So that would mean every sysop who has touched A/VD would be demoted. Brilliant. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:35, 1 October 2009 (BST) | ||
::::Every sysop whose touching of A/VD Iscariot disagrees with. Let's not paint him to be some kind of monster now! {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 02:43, 1 October 2009 (BST) | ::::Every sysop whose touching of A/VD Iscariot disagrees with. Let's not paint him to be some kind of monster now! {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 02:43, 1 October 2009 (BST) | ||
Oh dear. Of the three points, the bottom two are unreasonable. Sysops should have any right to rightly strike their own vandal escalations if the striking is legitimate. And for god's sake, that last point, "# alter the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will" can imply that we can't '''''add''''' escalations under any legitimate circumstance, lest ''strike'' them, if the "victim" doesn't agree with it, and you're trying to embed that into policy? The wiki lawyers will have a fucking field day. They'd have to be one smartarse of a wikilawyer to try it, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|DarkSlateGray|Silver}}-- 05:24, 1 October 2009 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 04:24, 1 October 2009
Hahaha.
I love all the little clauses and phrases you've thrown in there to basically automatically have Boxy convicted for (legally) editing your entry. Sorry mang but messing with A/VD is already Misconduct; you just want to "get" Boxy. Cyberbob Talk 01:19, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- What are you talking about, Cyberbob. This policy is clearly GOLD.-- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:22, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- This policy will be retroactively applicable. Yep, that sums it all up.--Orange Talk 02:12, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- You missed "No vote will be needed, just the proof (such as edit histories, contribution records etc.) being presented in a misconduct case will be sufficient to prove guilt of this offence." and all of the second-last paragraph. Cyberbob Talk 02:31, 1 October 2009 (BST)
- Oh, and the third dot point. Cyberbob Talk 02:43, 1 October 2009 (BST)
Oh dear. Of the three points, the bottom two are unreasonable. Sysops should have any right to rightly strike their own vandal escalations if the striking is legitimate. And for god's sake, that last point, "# alter the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will" can imply that we can't add escalations under any legitimate circumstance, lest strike them, if the "victim" doesn't agree with it, and you're trying to embed that into policy? The wiki lawyers will have a fucking field day. They'd have to be one smartarse of a wikilawyer to try it, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:24, 1 October 2009 (BST)
