UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibit Sysop Fraud

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)

Forgive me, that was my hilarious friend typing some shit he thought was funny into the edit box I had opened while I was on the toilet. I completely agree with you. Cyberbob  Talk  01:24, 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)

So that would mean every sysop who has touched A/VD would be demoted. Brilliant. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 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! 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)

Oh look, it's already been brought up. Don't mind me then. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:41, 1 October 2009 (BST)

No idea why you wasted 703 bytes on this abortion of a policy, but that's your perogative I guess. Cyberbob  Talk  05:42, 1 October 2009 (BST)

I tried so hard, so hard, to find something witty to say. But honestly, this "policy" is sad. I mean SAD. I'm going to go cry and cut myself...--SirArgo ^Talk 06:48, 1 October 2009 (BST)

I also tried to think of something witty. Alas, I will go drink instead because that is far more productive than finding good things to say about this policy. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:39, 1 October 2009 (BST)

This is amazing. So I alter a vandal data entry, and get taken to vandal banning, misconduct AND the serious fraud section. Truly amazing. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:49, 1 October 2009 (BST)

But wait! I can't be given a vandalism warning because that would be altering the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:57, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Lol! --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:11, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Here's all the necessary wit for this policy...Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you, Izzy. Conndraka^{TAZM CFT} 09:44, 1 October 2009 (BST)

A penny for my thoughts

This is bullshit. It's completely unreasonable and serves nobody but yourself. The only person who've we've had any major qualms about VD is you and it usually stems from your bizarre self righteous crusade for the benefit for the community. To be blunt, this place was much, much quieter without you and I'd hoped that your break would get you to calm down and actually contribute again rather than going off on one due to some perceived injustice. Please fuck off again, and leave us all in peace. -- Cheese 10:55, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Now, now, Cheese, don't you remember those two days where he was moderately less of a troll? No? Maybe it was an hour then.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:08, 1 October 2009 (BST)

I thought it was closer to about 5 minutes. =p -- Cheese 11:11, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Vandalism

This is not a Policy its a clearly bad faith edit that probably deserves punishing as Vandalism. --Honestmistake 12:10, 1 October 2009 (BST)

The sad thing is that it isn't. Iscariot actually wants this to become policy, and, although his motives are sinister, we can't discriminate against his opinion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:14, 1 October 2009 (BST)

He may well want the policy but only so he can use it to cause trouble. Look at the wording, ever single nuance is there to let him cause drama and there is no way it could be read in any way that make it seem like he has any valid points. The whole thing is 100% solid shit crafted for his own petty reasons. You say it yourself "his motives are sinister" and thats pretty much what makes this bad faith and thus almost certainly vandalism... as for not discriminating against his opinion, well we can and we do. People have been A/VB'd for a lot less in the past. --Honestmistake 13:05, 1 October 2009 (BST)

That's mens rea, but no Actus Reus. He is perfectly entitled to create a policy discussion against the will of the public, which is why there's a discussion. If we limit who can make policy discussions, we may as well just ditch the whole system.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:13, 1 October 2009 (BST)

This policy is more fixable than Jorm's one that was ruled not vandalism. Meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:27 1 October 2009 (BST)

No man could physically rule vandalism on that work of art. The one time the community truely came together ;D God bless you Wiers. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:44, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Not too mention that Jorms was not done in Bad Faith. Grumpy faith maybe but not actually with malice. --Honestmistake 18:01, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Good one

"Sysops that... alter the vandal data of a user contrary to that user's will... will be guilty of Fraudulent Misconduct."

That's gold! No more escalations for anyone, because I'm pretty sure that 90% of vandal escalations would be "contrary to that user's will" >:)
Seriously though, you don't "own" your vandal data, it is information to help sysops keep track of vandal escalations. If anyone "owns" it, it is the admin of the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:49 1 October 2009 (BST)

Here Here! Let us rule you all in peace. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 13:15, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Shhhh!!!!!!!!!

be quiet i have one less warning than i should--Imthatguy is on the wiki looking at ur pagez 13:50, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Not only is that not true, but, well, that's it. It isn't true. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:10, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Sure ;) --Imthatguy is on the wiki looking at ur pagez 18:17, 1 October 2009 (BST)

hey if you type that wink smiley a few more times people might start to get worried that you're not lying Cyberbob  Talk  18:25, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Notice Cyberbob in his natural habitat, full of sarcasm preying on some helpless wikinoob --Imthatguy is on the wiki looking at ur pagez 20:31, 1 October 2009 (BST)

helpless little n00b...... so precious, so delicate Cyberbob  Talk  20:38, 1 October 2009 (BST)

...so righteous...--Thadeous Oakley 23:02, 1 October 2009 (BST)

I checked the warnings on your talk page, I checked your A/VD, I even checked the oncoming links from your userpage that come from A/VD archives. Stop trying to bullshit people for attention. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:57, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Stop giving him the attention he is bullshitting for if said attention is not in the form of killer burns. Cyberbob  Talk  23:59, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Christ... some poeple make big deals out of nothing and FYI it is not true some of us try to bring humour and light the darkness and hellishness of this wiki--Imthatguy is on the wiki looking at ur pagez 11:05, 3 October 2009 (BST)

DOWN WITH TEH CRATZZZZZZZZZZZ Cyberbob  Talk  11:09, 3 October 2009 (BST)

As a sysop/crat it's my job to take this wiki seriously and deal with the hellishness that morons like you tend to bring. Deal with it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 17:31, 3 October 2009 (BST)

Actually, as a sysop you are merely trusted not to abuse the tools the community gave you. If you want to make fun of users while at it, its your call. If seriousness was a requirement for sysophood, cyberbob wouldn't ever had become one --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 22:36, 3 October 2009 (BST)

This doesn't work

Point 2 is fucking stupid, why shouldn't Sysops be allowed to update their own vandal entries if they meet the requirements? Point 3 is abusable and it conflicts with point 1: If a user refuses to allow us to update their vandal record then we either get demoted for editing it or for not making sure it's completely accurate! Finally, you can't make policies apply retroactive punishments on people who weren't breaking the rules at the time. How are we supposed to know that what we're doing might be against the rules sometime in the future.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:59, 1 October 2009 (BST)

thank you for these stunning revelations Cyberbob  Talk  23:24, 1 October 2009 (BST)

This is a bad policy idear. I don't think anyone wants sweeping retroactive punishments to rain down on the sysops or any other group of users, particularly for potentially minor procedural breeches. If the author has a serious concern with the way vandal data is handled, it would be more constructive to develop a policy through community input that would seek to fix the problem without the use of draconian bans.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:53, 2 October 2009 (BST)

I get a new header because.

People always go on at me about not getting the point of the spirit of the policy. I have therefore added the appropriate line that removes the unintended loophole about contesting legal escalations. That covers the majority of the conceived responses. Now, for the rest individually.

"So I alter a vandal data entry, and get taken to vandal banning, misconduct AND the serious fraud section. Truly amazing. --Rosslessness" - Nope, you don't because you aren't a sysop this week.

"Here's all the necessary wit for this policy...Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you, Izzy. Conndraka" - Awww, Conndraka, why am I not shocked about you trying to stir up drama on one of the three pages on your watchlist? What have you contributed to this community since you cried over your demotion? Apart from your absence that is.

The General:

"why shouldn't Sysops be allowed to update their own vandal entries if they meet the requirements?" - Why aren't they allowed to speedy things they nominate themselves? The fact of some sort of review should be evident with everything involving limited powers, editing a protected page comes under that purview.

"How are we supposed to know that what we're doing might be against the rules sometime in the future." - Boxy seems to know enough about the de-escalations policy to put a veneer of legitimacy on his fallacious edit, but the truth is evident to anyone who looks at it with an objective eye.

This brings up the quite obvious point, why is the admin team quite happy for Boxy's fraudulent editing to my record to go unchallenged? I could have brought up the case in misconduct (which it is without need for this policy) but correctly surmised that there would be no point, as he'd politic himself free. With eight non-Kevan sysops Boxy only needs three to get himself in the clear, he obviously votes not misconduct, Cyberbob (who judging from the comments above seems to have inherited Conndraka's rule then maybe actually think about understanding the case later disease) goes along with that and Cheese plays a merry +1 role, with Rooster too spineless to get involved in even the most open and shut cases, Link allergic to drama and SA inactive it means that through generic hand holding a blantant attack on me is permitted by the admin team.

I've asked on two separate pages for Boxy to undo his edit so that the correct edit and de-escalation could be applied when it had been correctly determined. Any other user asking for this would have had it granted immediately without a stone walled refusal that Boxy has taken on this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:20, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Do you ever notice how many people NOT on the admin team think things you do and propose to do are retarded? No? Didn't think so. But still, SYSOPS ARE FUCKING US OVER. THIS WIKI IS ALL THAT MATTERS. HATE, HATE, HATE.--SirArgo ^Talk 07:27, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Contribute much? I'm guessing you are happy for Boxy to fraudulently alter my history. Thank you for your input. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:32, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Wow! I get the first "Thank you for your input" since your return! What a prestigious honor you give me. I now know I am succeeding!--SirArgo ^Talk 07:52, 5 October 2009 (BST)

a bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo Cyberbob  Talk  07:41, 5 October 2009 (BST)

For those of us who don't know, what EXACTLY is it that you're saying Boxy did? --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:42, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Here's the discussion in question. See if you can make heads or tails of what Iscariot is accusing Boxy of - Boxy couldn't and I certainly can't. Iscariot takes a childish pleasure in not explaining himself. Cyberbob  Talk  07:48, 5 October 2009 (BST)

I think Cyberbob's response pretty much follows the tone as goes his general sysop conduct. However for Yonnua's benefit, if you look at the edit made to my record and Boxy's supposed reasons for it, it can clearly be seen that the edit is inaccurate, inconsistent and deliberately erroneous. Cyberbob also forgot to mention that another request can be found on my talk page, the same page where Cyberbob accused me of removing someone from a list when basic reading shows I didn't. My reward for these accusations whilst performing routine maintenance on this wiki? No apology. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:58, 5 October 2009 (BST)

He wants Boxy to replace the words "1 week ban" with "24 hour ban". As Boxy didn't update the entire thing, it's completely sinister.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:51, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Edit conflicted: no, false. I want the record set back how it was before to allow others to have a simple time to investigate this and come to the correct conclusion. Why is Boxy treating me as a special case? He hasn't de-escalated anyone else who was due a reduction, I haven't asked for one, why am I being targeted by him? And why is he stone walling a simple request for this edit to be undone? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:58, 5 October 2009 (BST)

He didn't understand why you want it. You only want it to be argumentative. He did it because it was a previously realised issue that hadn't been dealt with at the time. And, if he were to revert it, it would be contrary to what this policy would attempt to achieve, the complete correctness of the vandal data.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:59, 5 October 2009 (BST)

No, it is obvious that he's altered certain things differently to others. Undoing it would not be contrary to this policy, because what is was presents the base from which the correct edit can be made, his is incorrect and obfuscates the ability to discover the correct edit from anyone researching it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:03, 5 October 2009 (BST)

a bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo bloo Cyberbob  Talk  08:32, 5 October 2009 (BST)

It's perfectly reasonable to allow sysops to generally only de-escalate people on the basis of when they have cases put against them on A/VB and when that case is ruled Vandalism, because that is A/VD's use, as an escalation system, and doing it on a case-by-case basis is a fine, reliable way of doing it, as long as the sysop isn't a nong. Boxy did what he did to your A/VD because you said your A/VD was wrong (rather than because he was obliged to do the customary check pending a vandalism ruling on A/VB), he changed it to what he thought was right, and I didn't have any problems with what he did at the time, nor now. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:50, 5 October 2009 (BST)

Just so we're clear, you have no problem with him putting a deliberately false entry in my record and refusing to undo his changes to allow other to apply the correct de-escalation? Do I have that right? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:54, 5 October 2009 (BST)