UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Required Warnings

Discussion

As mentioned on IRC, I think the A/DE aspect adds some unnecessary paperwork. I like that it isn't required for all A/DE requests, just ones that originate from someone else, and I'd support it if it went to vote this way, but I'd prefer that the A/DE aspect be taken out entirely, and that only escalations required providing warning to the user. —Aichon— 08:33, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Seems about right. This was always an unwritten rule in the past.--Thadeous Oakley 10:38, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Sort of. More often than not, users aren't actually told when they are banned. We stopped doing it consistently a while ago. As for warnings, we've always done them, so there isn't much harm in enforcing them. As for de-escalations, I think it's annoying and adds more grinding tasks to the sysop when he has to de-escalate someone, but meh. He amended the issue with double-redundancy regarding A/DE requests so I think I'll live with this policy in its current state. --

 

 

 

 

10:51, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Seems fair. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:04, 11 April 2010 (BST)

I'd support it with the need to notify of a deescalation removed. The reason for a notification of an increase in the escalation status is clear, because such an escalation means they are getting closer to a permban. Deescalation doesn't affect them adversely at all, and forcing sysops to go out of their way to inform vandals that they now have "one more bonus chance" to vandalise just seems counter-productive -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:07 11 April 2010 (BST)

What he said ^^^^--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:38, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Eh, go for it. I've always warned those I've escalated in the past, so it's just an extra chunk of text to me, but codifying these things is nice. 13:13, 11 April 2010 (BST)

I take it this covers the three-edit rule and spambots? Similarly to above, I don't see the de-escalation part as necessary.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:31, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Interesting thought. Spambots don't get userpages or user talk pages. In terms of 3-edit vandals, I'd prefer if ops didn't have to. It's a clause to eliminate dedicated vandal/spam accounts which don't serve a purpose as a normal user on the wiki in the first place, they don't need to be notified since in 99% of cases it's what they're expecting in the first place. --

 

 

 

 

13:39, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Well that's what I was thinking, and if so, that would be a minor amendment which would need to be discussed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:40, 11 April 2010 (BST)

Nope. Spambots got no talk pages, so get no warnings. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:44, 11 April 2010 (BST)

By that logic, folks with no talk pages get no warnings either, which isn't good. I think Yonnua is right: an amendment to the policy is necessary. —Aichon— 00:30, 12 April 2010 (BST)

I'm sorry folks,... but the first thing that came to mind when I read this was the Police Blotter in the paper,... honestly no one gives a damn about joe blow, who de-escallated today for being a good citizen, and john smith who escalated for being new to the wiki.... you all get my point? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 14:59, 11 April 2010 (BST)

No. I have no idea what you're talking about at all. This policy is about the clear warning of users On their talk page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:13, 11 April 2010 (BST)

He might be thinking of this policy. 18:35, 11 April 2010 (BST)

No, I think he is actually talking about this policy... --

 

 

 

 

00:03, 12 April 2010 (BST)

I are confused. 00:07, 12 April 2010 (BST)

I think he thought we were thinking that when people get (de)escalated, we thought that a notification should be made to the whole wiki, I think.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:08, 12 April 2010 (BST)

I'll be shouting mine from the rooftops. 00:12, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Mutant Albino Shouting Gorilla?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:13, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Troglodytes gorilla albinus belligerus. 00:14, 12 April 2010 (BST)

Yes. but with pudding.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:16, 12 April 2010 (BST)

It sounds good to me. I support it. --Jesant13 23:12, 13 April 2010 (BST)

It takes a special kind of vegetable to think deliberately not posting warnings on talk pages is in any way clever. Cyberbob  Talk  15:29, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Re: A/DE

I'd be willing to remove the notification of de-escalations due to A/DE provided it's accepted that I can add a clause in this policy that mandates that A/DE cases can only be made for yourself. I've always thought it retarded that someone else can go around fucking with your history, remove that possibility and there's no need for notification due to A/DE cases. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:39, 14 April 2010 (BST)

This isn't a negotiation, Iscariot. The policy's either sound or it isn't, we aren't gonna haggle with you. That said, I may be willing to support this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:01, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Don't hold people to ransom with offers, do what you think is right and put it up for discussion... --

 

 

 

 

10:14, 14 April 2010 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Required Warnings --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:17, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Most policies change through the process. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:17, 14 April 2010 (BST)

What Ross said. This way is clearly superior than the idiotic method of putting three similar policies into voting at the same time, which is what caused the problem that may necessitate this clause. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:32, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Demanding that they be mutually exclusive w/o discussion doesn't sound much like policy discussion to me. It sounds like he's forcing one or the other when there is no reason why both couldn't apply, if desired. I don't actually give a shit, but demanding it be one or other is fair dumb/unnecessary, specially when the compromise has to be made by his personal choice? --

 

 

 

 

10:46, 14 April 2010 (BST)

We'd need to be careful about that in regards to sysops de-escalating people as a courtesy when they go to escalate them. Not that I've ever seen A/DE used that way though, so I doubt it really matters. Otherwise, I agree with you entirely about that idea being stupid. —Aichon— 10:22, 14 April 2010 (BST)

De-escalations applied during escalation proceedings have nothing to do with A/DE so won't be covered by this, but the escalation will be so a note can be added to the subsequent warning: "Warning - You have been found guilty of acting like a cunt, due to contributions reducing your vandal escalations this escalation counts as a second warning. Any further escalations will result in bans fucko." That sort of thing. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:32, 14 April 2010 (BST)

But with more rage.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:44, 14 April 2010 (BST)

I thought warnings like that were exactly what this policy was supposed to prevent, what with the language about being professional and whatnot. ;) —Aichon— 10:49, 14 April 2010 (BST)

I am not a sysop :p -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:50, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Grims biggest coup flaw, If he'd promoted you at the same time we might have had some real fun. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:47, 14 April 2010 (BST)

ZOMG! Ross thinks promoting me would be fun! Everyone, go to the 'crat election quick and change your votes! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:54, 14 April 2010 (BST)

I love Iscariot. Who doesn't? Plus he categorises all the images I'm too lazy to do. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:50, 14 April 2010 (BST)

Deescalation isn't "fucking with your history". The escalation system is a way for sysops to keep track of how many warnings/bans need to be taken into account in the case of further vandalism by a poster. The information does not belong to the poster, but rather to the admin of the wiki. I see no reason why a poster needs to be informed when they are deescalated, nor should they have the option of manipulating the data themselves by refusing deescalations -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:44 18 April 2010 (BST)

Which fucking is it? Tell me right now and answer the fucking question this time. I've had de-escalations not applied because certain sysops deemed I didn't get them due to them not being requested and now you are trying to tell me the data belongs only to Kevan, which is it?

If the data belongs to Kevan, why even after repeated asking have you not shown your working when you fraudulently altered my data to deny me de-escalations? If the data belongs to Kevan surely you should be supplying this to him on the wiki in some form. Despite repeated requests from me you have never provided this basic information, showing your working is required on maths tests for 8 year olds, yet you have repeatedly refused to show yours for no valid reason. Either the data belongs to Kevan, and you should man up and show that you've deliberately falsified my history or it belongs to me. Pick one.

I of course already know that you'll wax lyrical and do nothing, much like your talk of demoting to give this wiki an active sysop and 'crat, all talk with no action. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:04, 18 April 2010 (BST)

I showed my reasoning in the changes to your A/VD history at the time. It was you who has steadfastly refused to give any evidence for your claims that it is still wrong, instead simply demanding that it not be changed at all. I have no idea why you (or anyone) would want to ban sysops from ever reducing your escalations.

Give me some reason why a poster needs to be informed of a reduction of their A/VD data, other than "so they know they can now vandalise the wiki again" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:15 20 April 2010 (BST)

Not once have you provided a list of dates and number of de-escalations, nor any reasoning as to why other more obvious de-escalations were not applied. If you had it'd be a simple matter to link it here. Your entire reasoning boiled down to "my best guess because I couldn't be bothered to do the actual work". You claim this is the correct state of my history, in all reasonable systems the burden of proof is on the claimant, prove your claims. I want it putting back because it's currently harder for some sysop who is actually bothered to do the work to reach the correct conclusions about my A/VD history.

I'll happily prove my claims when you prove yours. Weren't you demoting? Oh yeah, a claim.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:26, 20 April 2010 (BST)

I did provide my reasoning, and the active sysops at the time did check it. You had ample chance to have other incidents considered, but you choose instead to simply shout 'WRONG'. Such is life -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:32 20 April 2010 (BST)